http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  34 of 2007

PETITIONER: Mahendra & Ors.                                                 ...Appellants

RESPONDENT: State of Uttaranchal & Anr.                                     ...Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/01/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 2893 of 2006)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Leave granted.

Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single  Judge of the Uttranchal High Court dismissing the Criminal Miscellaneous  Applications.  The High Court took exception to the fact that two petitions  were filed in respect of the same impugned order.  According to the High  Court the appellants had concealed the fact that the second petition had been  filed while the first petition was pending consideration.

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:   Criminal Misc. Application No.4279 of 1998 was filed by the  appellants before the Allahabad High Court. After bifurcation of the State  the said case was transferred to the Uttranchal High Court and was re- numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No.953 of 2001.  It appears that  there was another petition filed which was numbered as Criminal Misc.  Application No. 4435 of 1998 and the same was re-numbered as Criminal  Misc. Application No. 950 of 2001.  The High Court was of the view that  Criminal Misc. Application No. 4435 of 1998 corresponding to Criminal  Misc. Application No. 950 of 2001 was filed earlier and when the appellants   failed to get an order of stay they filed the second petition suppressing the  fact that one earlier petition was pending.  In the second petition the  appellants got an order of stay.  This according to the High Court was a  depreciable practice.  

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the confusion arose  because the latter petition i.e. Criminal Misc. Application No. 4435 of 1998  was renumbered as Criminal Misc. Application 950 of 2001 while the earlier  petition i.e. Criminal Misc. Application No. 4279 of 1998 was re-numbered  as Criminal Misc. Application No. 953 of 2001.  It is pointed out that the  said petition was filed on 6.10.1998 and there was an interim order passed in  the said case. It is submitted that by mistake the advocate’s clerk filed exact  copy of the earlier petition which was numbered as Criminal Misc.  Application No. 4435 of 1998. The same was filed at a latter date.  In this  background it was submitted that there was no suppression and in fact there  was no reason to mislead the Hon’ble Court.

Per contra learned counsel for the State submitted that the appellants  have not explained satisfactorily as to under what circumstances two similar

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

applications were filed.

We find that in fact the confusion arose because the petition filed later  was renumbered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 950 of 2001 while the  petition filed earlier, in which the order of stay granted on 23.12.1998, was  re-numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 953 of 2001.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the filing of the  second application was on account of confusion and the same in fact was not  pressed.

In the peculiar circumstances of the case we are satisfied that the  filing of the second application was on account of a bona fide  mistake and  the confusion arose because of the fact that the second criminal application  was renumbered as Crl. Misc. Application 950 of 2001 while the earlier  petition was re-numbered as 953 of 2001.  In the aforesaid background we  set aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court  for fresh consideration on merits.  Since the learned counsel for the appellant  has stated that Criminal Misc. Application No. 4435 of 1998 was not  pressed, the same need not be considered by the High Court.

Before we part with the case, it has to be noted that several instances  have come to our notice that several petitions of similar nature are being  filed without disclosing that earlier a petition had been filed. It would be  therefore appropriate for the High Courts to make provision in the relevant  Rules that in every petition it shall be clearly stated as to whether any earlier  petition had been filed and/or is pending in respect of the same cause of  action. It shall also be indicated as to what was the result of the earlier  petition. If this procedure is followed, the confusion of the kind which has  surfaced in this case can be ruled out.  

The appeal is disposed of.