Litigants Must Choose One Forum, They Don't Have Kangaroo Right To Hop Between Allahabad & Lucknow Benches: Allahabad HC

The Court further observed that under Clause-14 of the United Provinces High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 petitions at Lucknow can be transferred by the Chief Justice of the High Court while sitting at Lucknow to Allahabad, however, the reverse cannot be done.

The Court opined that a petition filed at Allahabad cannot be transferred to and be heard at Lucknow. Therefore, filing of petitions seeking similar reliefs cannot be entertained at Lucknow when the case is already pending before the Principal Bench.

“Merely because petitioner has a right to file writ petition before any Court of their choice either at Allahabad or Lucknow, it does not give them a kangaroo right to hop around jurisdiction on whims. It is not only his convenience, which is to be looked into, but convenience of all related is also relevant, including that of Court. Facts of this case are a glaring example of the same. The difficulty being faced by this Court is created by petitioner only,” held the bench comprising of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manish Kumar.

Factual Background

The petitioner is a practising advocate who claims himself to be a tenant of House No. 23, Stanley Road, Allahabad (new number being 85) built upon Nazul land bearing Nazul Plot No. 22 AA situated at Civil Station, Allahabad. The plot was registered in name of Smt. Chandrakala Devi. In 2001, approval was granted for converting the Nazul land into freehold in favour of her legal heirs.

Thereafter, a sale deed was executed by the legal heirs in favour of private respondents. In 2014, government took a policy decision to revise rates for conversion of Nazul property into freeholds and change in Nazul policy. Petitioner challenged the said policy along with Clause 10 of Notification dated 04.03.2014. Further, petitioner prayed for quashing the sale deed executed by State in favour of the legal heirs of Late Smt. Chandrakala Devi. Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to not interfere in his possession over House No. 23, Stanley Road, Allahabad (built on Nazul Plot No. 22AA).

A preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition was raised by the private respondents on grounds that the petitioner had already approached the principal bench of the Allahabad High Court for directions to State to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. However, the writ petition was disposed of with observation that “State is not duty bound to execute a sale deed in favour of any individual.”

It was stated that the same petitioner has been filed before the Principal Bench at Allahabad praying for the same reliefs. It was argued that the petitioner is trying to forum shop. Once writ petition has been filed before the Principal Bench of the Allahabad High Court, no occasion arises to file a writ petition seeking same reliefs before the Lucknow Bench.

Defending the maintainability of the petition, counsel for petitioner contended that both benches have territorial jurisdiction over the matter. Though the counsel stated that he was not aware of the status of the writ petition filed at Allahabad, he pointed out the disclosures regarding the two previous writ petitions in the new writ petition. He further submitted that “Filing of present petition at Lucknow is only an exercise of forum conveniens.”

High Court Verdict

The Court observed that the petitioner ought to have disclosed the pending writ petitions in the first paragraph of the writ petition as is mandatorily required by Chapter 22, Rule 1 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs Union of India and Another, the Court held that the petitioner was forum hunting and not forum conveniens.

“In Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (supra) and Krishna Veni Nagam (supra), Supreme Court has held that plaintiff/petitioner alone does not have exclusive discretion to choose jurisdiction when the same lies at multiple places. In appropriate cases, Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction and fix jurisdiction taking into consideration the convenience of parties, witnesses, Court and any other relevant factors, which would impact the proceedings.”

The Court held that petitioner is the master of his petition. However, when the petitioner chose to file petitions at Allahabad which may be pending, it should have been disclosed in the first paragraph of the petition.

“Even otherwise, the unique position with regard to Allahabad High Court is that under Clause-14 of United Provinces High Court (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 the petitions can be transferred by the Chief Justice while sitting at Lucknow to Allahabad but same can neither be transferred by him from Allahabad to Lucknow nor any Court can summon them. The matters at Allahabad can only be heard at Allahabad. Therefore, in the given circumstances, this Court cannot summon the records from Allahabad.”

The Court held that the petitioner must choose one forum to litigate for a particular cause of action. Petitioner being the master of his petition cannot be permitted to cause inconvenience to Court and keep list pending unnecessary in bifurcated manner, observed the Court. The Court observed that the petitioner cannot be allowed to hop from one forum to another at his whims.

The Court held that the party has the choice to choose a forum and must restrict themselves to the initial forum for future litigation.

“Hopping around forums would be highly inconvenient to the working of the Court as in the present case. Once petitioner chooses a jurisdiction, out of many available, in normal course, he should stick with the same, unless he can provide cogent reasons for his hopping around.”

Since the petitioner had not provided any reasons for hopping from one bench of the Allahabad High Court to another, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: Prem Prakash Yadav v. Union Of India Thru Secy.Min.Of Urban Planning And Development 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 468 [WRIT - C No. - 3990 of 2014]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 468

Click Here To Read / Download Judgement