- (1.) This intra-court appeal has been preferred by the Rajasthan High court being aggrieved against certain directions issued by the Single Bench of this Court in order dated 29.9.2009 in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1265/2009 - State of Raj. Vs. Smt. Rekha Mahawar whereby the Single Bench of this court directed the Registrar of the High Court to scrutinize all the cases filed at Principal Seat of High Court at Jodhpur as well as the cases filed at the Bench of High Court at Jaipur and that too of past 5 years and find out the cause of action as explained in para no.24 of the impugned judgment and then put a note about the territorial jurisdiction and put those cases in defect side with registration number of the cases, obviously as defect case and then such cases shall be transferred to the appropriate seat or bench. The directions as given in para no.26 are as follows: - "26. Since as aforesaid, this question keeps on cropping up at both the places oft and on and more often than not at Jaipur Bench causing undesirable imbalance, it is directed that the Registry shall scrutinize all the cases filed at both the places in past 5 years and if the cause of action as explained above in para 24 falls within the domain of the principal seat or bench other than the place where such cases are filed, a defect note pointing out this question as to territorial jurisdiction, as is made by the Registry in the present case, would be made and the defect side registration number of the case would also be given and such cases shall be transferred to the appropriate seat or bench, as the case may be, unless such defect or objection of Registry is determined otherwise by the concerned Bench for maintainability of the case at that place only before matter is proceeded further on merits. Such scrutiny of the cases should be completed within 6 months from today and report by the Registrar General of the Court may be placed before the Court in this file showing the number of cases so scrutinized and transferred or upon orders by the Bench, maintained at that seat or bench, as the case may be. A copy of this order may be circulated by Dy. Registrar (Judl.) and Registrar General in Stamp Reporter Section and all other Sections in the Registry at Principal seat and Bench at Jaipur immediately by way of circular particularly containing examples enumerated in para 24 of the judgment above."
(2.) The leave was granted to the High Court to prefer appeal against the said impugned judgment vide order dated 18.1.2010 and the directions issued in para no.26 of the judgment dated 29.9.2009 were stayed vide order dated 19.3.2010. The matter was listed for final hearing as per the order dated 29.4.2010. An application was submitted by the Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association, Jodhpur for being impleaded as party and it also submitted an application with copies of some orders (Ex.A/1 to A/3) and it has been prayed that directions given in above orders also deserve to be quahsed. On 4.1.2011, the Coordinate Bench of this court observed that since the matter pertains to the functioning of the High Court in relation to certain matters, the issue may be examined, keeping in view the provisions of Sections 122 and 123 of CPC read with Article 225 of the Constitution of India and the High Court Rules and orders already framed and which are in force and the decision of Supreme Court reported in AIR 2001 SC 416. Today an application has been submitted on behalf of the Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association for taking on record certain other orders, which have been passed by the Single Bench of this Court in various matters to point out that several directions have been issued by the Single Bench of this court to the Registry of the High Court which virtually amounts to legislating through judicial process by passing the orders in judicial side, which is impermissible in law.
(3.) We perused the following orders passed by the Single Bench giving directions to the Registry, obviously, to the High Court also in relation to the procedure of filing of the matters in the High Court and how they should be dealt with and certain directions to the bar. We perused the orders passed in under mentioned matters. 1. SBCWP No.2284/2008 Pramod Kumar Chhaparwal Vs. Kanhaiya Lal Order dated 2.7.2008 2. SBCWP No.5639/2010 Smt. Rupesh Kumari & Ors Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Order dated 7.7.2010 3. SBCWP No.2930/2009 Vinod Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Raj. Order dated 24.4.2008 4. SBCWP No.1040/2000 Amrit Lal & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors. Order dated 19.2.2008 5. SBCWP No.8741/2009 - Brij Kishore Gopa Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Order dated 11.9.2009 6. SBCWP No.1418/2008 Surendar Singh Vs. The Addl. District Judge No.2, Bhilwara & Anr. Order dated 18.7.2008 7. SBCWP No.7958/2010 Kushwant Kumar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Order dated 25.8.2010 8. SBCWP No.9289/2009 Swaroopa Ram & Ors Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Order dated 26.8.2010 9. SBCWP No.4674/2010 Rosamma Mathew Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Order dated 20.8.2010;