High Court catches a District Judge deciding a Case in favour of his Ex Client, starts disciplinary action
23/01/2020
New Delhi, Jan 22: The Calcutta High Court had just recently caught a corruption instance channeled by a Lower Court Judge as he decided a case in favor of his ex-client.
The Court recommended administrative action against the District Judge for material irregularity and impropriety in a judicial order.
The District Judge dismissed the first appeal of the said case on grounds of delay. The application for condonation of delay was dismissed on the grounds that the appeal lacked merits.
Aggrieved by the order, the appellant knocked Calcutta High Court's order which after considering the plea, observed that the order was passed with material irregularities.
The Court noted that the appellant prayed for condonation of delay (179 days) on several grounds including medical grounds (ostero-arthritis).
It stated that the lower Appellate Court failed to consider the medical certificates issued by qualified doctors exhibited by the appellant and wrongly rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The Court remarked: The Bench also noted that the District Judge had appeared as an Advocate for the respondent in the case in an earlier appeal filed in the HC against the preliminary decree passed in the same suit. The HC observed that the District Judge was aware of this fact, as the judgment in the earlier appeal was part of the record.
To this, It remarked: The Court further added, To reinforce the above-made observation, the High Court then cited certain SC precedents.
Thus the Court ordered that matter should be placed before the Administrative Committee to consider the conduct of the Judge for any action on the administrative side of the Calcutta High Court.
The Court so dismissed the impugned judgment and set aside the order of dismissal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
It also remanded the application to the District Judge.
The High Court also observed that the matter should have been dealt with by the Additional District Judge, who had earlier dealt with the appeal from the preliminary decree.
Share This Story |
|
Comment On This Story |
|
|
|
|