Protik Prakash Banerjee, J. - (1.) This matter has come up as 'To Be Mentioned' at the instance of the Court. This application was heard and allowed on January 24, 2018 by a Division Bench comprising His Lordship, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and I. When the application was allowed, we were under the impression that all that was required us to effect change in the cause title of the Memorandum of Appeal, the File, the Register and the connected cause papers. What the Court had not noticed, but was subsequently apprised by the good offices of the department, whose contribution in this regard is appreciated, was that there had been earlier amendments effected by which certain parties/ respondents were deleted from the array and certain other parties had been added. The addition was made under the order dated March 8, 2017 in red ink pursuant to an order of the Co-ordinate Bench passed in General Application No. 720 of 2017, without however a corresponding change in the vakalatnama, which is comprised in the cause papers. Deletions were made in green ink, that is to say, by second amendment again without, however, a corresponding change in the cause papers including the vakalatnama. The second amendment was done by a Coordinate Bench by an Order dated September 22, 2017 in General Application No. 1412 of 2016. This was passed by a Co-ordinate Bench to which one of us (Hon'ble Justice Dipankar Datta, J) had been a party.
(2.) It appears that the learned advocates acting in the original side who had sought the amendment had not taken the due care required to effect changes in the vakalatnama or the connected papers including the Notice of Motion and I am informed by the department that despite repeated requests, it is often difficult to find the learned Advocates-on-Record, not just in this case, but in many other cases. The Court, therefore, proposes to pass necessary orders for correction of its earlier order. This order was passed by us on January 10, 2018. However, the order was passed by us sitting in Division and though under Chapter 31, Rule 29(a) of High Court Rules, 1914 when the Division Bench is not sitting, the Judge sitting singly has sufficient powers in terms of Chapter 31, Rule 29, clause (b) to pass necessary orders dispensing with any or all of the rules contained in the Rules of High Court, 1914, I consider it contrary to judicial propriety to pass the order by sitting Singly, for the reasons which are mentioned below.
(3.) I am inclined to post the matter before the Division Bench comprising us since it will be available on and from January 29, 2018. It would be proper of me to do so. On such date, necessary orders extending the time to carry out the amendments may also be passed since such time, I am told, expired on January 24, 2018. Another reason why I am not inclined to pass the order today itself is because Chapter 31 Rule 29 envisages an application being made and in terms of Chapter 20, application must be made by motion and there is no motion made before me in that regard.;