Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a party has a choice to invoke jurisdiction of the high court either at Allahabad or at Lucknow and once they have exercised the said choice, parties should restrict themselves to their initial choice of forum while filing later petitions.

The bench of Justice Manish and Justice Vivek Chaudhary said, "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 the normal course, he should stick with the same, unless he can provide cogent reasons for his hopping around".

The observations were made in a petition filed by a practicing advocate claiming himself to be a tenant of a house in Allahabad. The plot of the house had been converted from a Nazul Land into freehold in favor of the legal heirs of the original owner of the house plot and it was sold to two of the respondents in the present plea.

By the present petition, petitioner was praying for the quashing of a government policy decision dated February 26, 2014 whereby approval was given to revise rates for conversion of Nazul property into freeholds and change in Nazul policy.

The plea was opposed by the counsel for the respondents questioned the maintainability of present petition at Lucknow stating that the petitioner had previously filed two other petitions at Allahabad bench seeking relief concerning the same property.

He contended that filing of third petition at Lucknow, after filing two earlier petitions at Allahabad amounted to forum hunting and was against the settled principle of law that once a forum has been chosen by a party he should stick with the same forum with regard to all future litigation in the said matter.

In support of his submissions, the counsel for the respondent had placed reliance upon a reported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs Union of India and Another(2004).

On the other hand, the counsel for the petitioner insisted that since cause of action in the present petition had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Lucknow as well as Allahabad, thus the present petition was maintainable at Lucknow also.

Court found that the paperbook showed that the petitioner failed to disclose whether he had filed any writ petition earlier or not in Paragraph-1 of the writ petition as was mandatorily required by Chapter 22, Rule 1 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.

He ought to have disclosed in first paragraph itself that earlier petitions were filed at Allahabad, the bench stressed. 

Court said that the petitioner's such act amounted to forum hunting and not forum conveniens.

"No doubt petitioner is master of his petitions. In case jurisdiction partially falls at Lucknow in appropriate case a petition can be filed at Lucknow also. But in the present matter earlier repeatedly petitioner chose to file petitions at Allahabad and some of them are pending at Allahabad. The said fact ought to have been disclosed by the petitioner in the very first paragraph of his writ petition," it added. 

Court further highlighted that 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 the 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," bench said. 

Therefore, while holding that the petitioner in garb of his power to choose forum can not cause inconvenience to court and keep list pending unnecessary in bifurcated manner, court dismissed the present petition with liberty to petitioner to file the same at Allahabad.

Case Title: Prem Prakash Yadav v. Union Of India Thru Secy.Min.Of Urban Planning And Development