The Allahabad High Court has held that upon choosing to invoke the jurisdiction of a court, parties must adhere to their initial selection of the forum when filing subsequent petitions, emphasising the importance of consistency in jurisdiction.
The Court dismissed a writ petition holding that “once petitioner chooses a jurisdiction, out of many available, in the normal course, he should stick with the same unless he can provide cogent reasons for his hopping around.”
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, a practising advocate, asserted his status as a tenant of a house in Allahabad. The plot was originally registered under Smt. Chandrakala Devi and it underwent conversion to freehold in favour of her legal heirs who later sold it to the respondents. The petitioner sought to quash a government policy decision, challenge a deed executed in favour of legal heirs, and obtain a mandamus to prevent interference with his possession.
Contentions of the Parties:
The respondents challenged the petition's admissibility in Lucknow stating the petitioner's history of filing two prior petitions in Allahabad concerning the same property. The contention pointed to the settled legal principle against 'forum hunting' as established in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs Union of India and Another[1]. Despite this, the petitioner argued that the cause of action was within the territorial jurisdiction of both Lucknow and Allahabad. The petitioner had previously filed two petitions in Allahabad. The petitioner argued that the cause of action in the present petition had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Lucknow as well as Allahabad and thus the suit should be maintainable at Lucknow also.
Observations by the Court:
The High Court, relying on precedent in the Kusum Ingots Case (Supra note 1), held that the petitioner doesn't have exclusive discretion in choosing jurisdiction when multiple options are available. The Court stated that it is the Court's authority to exercise inherent jurisdiction considering various factors impacting proceedings, such as convenience for parties and witnesses.
While acknowledging the petitioner's right to file in Lucknow under certain circumstances, the Court criticised the petitioner's repeated choice of filing in Allahabad, some of which were still pending. The challenges posed by the inability to transfer cases from Allahabad to Lucknow, creating a hindrance to efficient case resolution were also highlighted.
The court expressed concern over the frequent occurrence of such disputes and held that "parties should restrict themselves to their initial choice of the forum while filing later petitions. Hopping around forums would be highly inconvenient to the working of the Court as in the present case."
The decision of the Court:
In light of the circumstances and the petitioner's failure to provide cogent reasons for forum changes, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The dismissal came with the liberty for the petitioner to file the same at Allahabad, emphasising the importance of maintaining judicial discipline and avoiding unnecessary inconvenience in bifurcated proceedings.
Case Title: Prem Prakash Yadav vs. Union Of India Thru Secy. Min.Of Urban Planning And Development
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manish Kumar
Case No.: Writ - C No. - 3990 of 2014
Advocates for the Petitioner: Chandra Kala Pandey, Prince Verma, Ravi Shanker Tewari, Santosh Kr. Yadav Warsi
Advocates for the Respondent: C.S.C., A.S.G., Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, Gaurav Mehrotra, Maria Fatima, V.K. Dubey
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
[1] (2004) 6 SCC 254
Picture Source :
