Holding

No special leave was granted; the petitions were dismissed.

Summary

The State of Punjab filed Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 29728‑29731 of 2008 challenging a High Court order concerning a 1963 auction of surplus evacuee lands. The Supreme Court found that the petitions contained factual inconsistencies between the case narrative and the synopsis/list of dates filed, the latter having been mechanically copied from the respondents' writ petition and thereby destroying the petitioners' case. The Court observed that the petitions were poorly drafted, with defects in the synopsis/list of dates, inaccurate translations, and lack of accompanying documents, leading to unnecessary adjournments. Despite these procedural shortcomings, the Court dismissed the petitions on merits, holding that no sufficient ground existed for granting special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution. The judgment also issued extensive observations urging Advocates‑on‑Record to exercise greater care in preparing and filing SLPs, to ensure accurate synopses, proper documentation, and personal appearances in court.

Issues considered

Whether the special leave petitions should be granted under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the inconsistencies and defects in the synopsis/list of dates affect the merits of the petitions.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 136

Subjects

Special Leave PetitionArticle 136Supreme Court RulesAdvocate‑on‑RecordSynopsis/List of DatesProcedural DefectsJudicial Efficiency

Judgment

• (2008) 17 S.C.R. 1567

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. A
v..
"""-~
ASHOK SINGH GARCHA & ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 29728-29731 of 2008)
DECEMBER 19, 2008
B
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.]
-{

.. SUPREME COURT RULES, 1960:
Or. 16, r.4(1) - Petition for special leave to appeal -
t
Drafting and filing of - Noticing preparation and filing of c
defective SLPs - Court OBSERVED - Advocates-on-Record
should pay more attention to preparation and filing of SLPs
and should ensure that uncorrected, unedited SLPs, incorrect
translations and petition not accompanied by relevant
documents leading to avoidable adjournments are not filed D
- Practice and procedure.
Or. 4, rr. 5 and 6 - Advocate-on-Record - Court noticing
I that frequently Advocates-on-Record do not appear in SLPs
filed by them - Unhealthy practice of Advocates-on-Record
merely lending their names without taking responsibility for E
proper preparation and filing of SLPs or proper appearances
in cases, deprecated - Practice and Procedure - Ethics -
Judicial deprecation.

-
In the petitions for special leave to appeal, the Court
noticed inconsistencies between the facts of the case as F
~
appearing from the record and those mentioned in the
synopsis/memo of dates filed along with the SLPs.
Dismissing the petitions on merits, the Court
OBSERVED:
1.Advocates-on-Record should pay more attention to G
preparation and filing of special leave petitions. In most
of the SLPs, the synopsis/list of dates filed suffer from
- \
defects namely: (i) filing of only a synopsis without list
of dates; (ii) filing of a list of dates without relevant
... 1567 H
.j-

1568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 17 S.C.R. ..
A material facts/events or synopsis; (iii) filing of inaccurate
and incomplete synopsis/list of dates; and (iv) filing of ~

lengthy synopsis/list of (fates without any effort to make ~
them concise or precise. Such defects in preparation of
a proper synopsis/list of dates cause confusion and
B result in defeating the very purpose of requiring the filing
of synopsis/list of dates. Petitions which are uncorrected
and unedited or with inaccurate translations or not
accompanied by relevant documents are also common
·-...
'
'
leading to avoidable frequent adjournments. Fax, e-mail
c and photocopying facilities have reduced difficulties to
a large extent in getting documents from far away places.
~
I
If clear and legible photocopies of certified copies of /

orders/judgments and other documents are filed, instead
of typed copies thereof, that may reduce errors in typing
and save time and expense. [Para 5 and 6] [1570-F-H;
D 1571-A-D, E]
2. One of the objects of providing that appearances
and filings in the Court shall be only by or through
Advocate-on".Record (unless the party appears in person)
is to ensure that Advocates well versed with the '
E Supreme Court Rules and experienced in drafting the
petitions will prepare ~nd file them. Further, the Court
frequently comes across special leave petitions, where
the Advocates-on-Record who filed them do not appear.

-
The unhealthy practice of Advocates-on-Record merely
F lending their names for filing SLPs or for entering
'appearances', without taking the responsibility for . ,.
proper preparation and filing of SLPs, or for proper
appearances in the cases, requires to be deprecated.
[Para 7] [1571-F-H; 1572-A-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave
G
Petition (C) Nos. 29728-29731 of 2008. i
.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 31.3.2008 and
24.4.2008 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at I "---
Chandigarh in LP.A. Nos. 90 & 91 of 2008 and LP.A. Nos.
H 94 & 95 of 2008. ..
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. v. ASHOK SINGH 1569
GARCHA & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, T.P. Mishra,;H.S. Sandhu and A
Ajay Pal for the Appellant.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
""'"""
ORDER
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.1. No ground is made out for
B
granting leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The
special leave petitions are therefore dismissed. We would
however like to make a few observations in regard to the
~
manner in which special leave petitions are drafted and filed,
as this case is a typical example of lack of care and attention
f in drafting the petitions and list of dates. c
2. The case of the petitioners is that there was a public
auction sale of certain surplus evacuee rural lands on
5.12.1963; that on account of collusion between the officers
holding the auction and one Shamsher Singh, there was no
proper proclamation and consequently, the members of public D
were not present at the time of auction; and that the said
Shamsher Singh cornered several lands by bidding in the
names of his several relatives (respondents herein or their
predecessors)at low prices.
3. But interestingly, we find that the synopsis/memo of ~
dates filed by the petitioner along with the special leave petition,
sets out a diametrically opposite Gase, as follows :
"It is humbly submitted that the land measuring 78 Kanals
16 Marlas situated in village Khera Bet, Tehsil and District
Ludhiana was put to open auction on December 5, 1963. F
....:L_,_ Due process as required under the rules was followed
before the auction proceedings were conducted. 70
persons including ex-sarpanch and nambardar (were
present). However, the land being totally waste, and on the
bank of river Satluj, only a few persons participated in the G
auction.
1 The bid sheet has been placed on the record as Annexure
,;
P-1. After auction proceedings the record was submitted
to the competent authority, namely settlement officer for
approval and·confirmation of the bid, which was confirmed 11
1570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 17 S.C.R.

A as no ebjection was raised by any body."
/ (emphasis supplied)
4. In short, the facts stated in the synopsis/list of dates
destroy the case of the petitioners that the auction was
conducted in a secretive manner to prevent public participation.
B The reason for such conflicting stands in the special leave
petition and the synopsis/list of dates is that while preparing
the synopsis/list of dates to be filed with the special leave
pelition, the petitioners had apparently copied the synopsis/list
of dates/facts from· the writ petition filed by the respondents in
C the High Court. In fact, Annexure 'P1' (bid sheet) referred in the
memo of dates is an annexure to the writ petition and not to
the special leave petition. Such mechanical 'cut and paste'
reproduction of what was stated by the respondents in their writ
petition, as the facts of the case by the petitioners, has resulted
D in the synopsis/list of.dates containing a case wholly destructive
of the case of petitioners in the special leave petition. •...._
5. We have referred to this incongruity as typical of the I
syflOpsis/list of dates which are prepared without proper care '
and attention. Form 28 under the Supreme Court Rules 1966, '
E which is the form prescribed for special leave petitions, does
!--
not require the facts to be stated in the petition. To enable the
court to know the factual background, in the absence of records,
clause (b) of Rule 4(1) of Order XVI of the said Rules requires r-
a list of dates in chronological order with relevant material facts
or events pertaining to each of the dates to be furnished along •
F with the special leave petition. In practice, the list of dates is 11
prefaced by a brief synopsis of facts to give a complete and ~
coherent picture of the facts. But in most of the special leave
petitions, the synopsis/list of dates filed suffer from one or the
other of the following_ defects : (i) filing of only a synopsis without
G list of dates; (ii) filing of a list of dates without relevant material
facts/events or synopsis; (iii) filing of inaccurate and incomplete
synopsis/list of dates; and (iv) filing of lengthy synopsis/list of ~
~
dates without any effort to make them concise or precise. Such I
defects in -the preparation of a proper synopsis/list of dates ;
lo-
H cause confusion arid result in defeating the very purpose of '
..
~"''~

~
~....
''
STATE-OF PUNJAB & ANR. v. ASHOK SINGH 1571
'
GARCHA & ORS. [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

requiring the filing of synopsis/list of dates. A
6. Petitions which are uncorrected and unedited, petitions
~ .... . with inaccurate translations and petitions not accompanied by
relevant documents are also common. Adjournments are
frequently and routinely sought to produce (i) copies of original
pleadings, in SLPs arising from civil suits; (ii) copies of FIR/ B
complaint or depositions, in SLPs arising from criminal trials;
and (iii) copies of relevant provisions of State enactments/rules
in SLPs where such provisions fall for consideration. These
~ ' result in avoidable adjournments for filing additional documents
, or additional affidavits. If the SLPs are properly prepared and c
filed with all relevant annexures, it will save the precious time
of the courts as also of the learned counsel, make the
functioning of the Registry smoother and efficient, and prevent
unintended miscarriage of justice. We are conscious of the
difficulties in getting documents from far away places. But such
D
difficulties have been redu<?ed to a large extent on account of
the easy availability of fax, e-mail and photocopying facilities.
If clear and legible photocopies of certified copies of orders/
judgments and other doc'uments are filed, instead of typed
copies thereof, that may reduce errors in typing and save time
and expense. This Court has been liberal in condoning delays, E
keeping in view the time required for securing the necessary
documents. But it should not be assumed that delays will be
-----t condoned or adjournments will be granted, merely for the

I r
asking. Nor should a stage be reached where it becomes
·necessary to frequently resort to dismissals for non-prosecution F
/'
or levy of costs to ensure compliance. In short, the Advocates-
' on-Record should pay more attention to the preparation and
filing of Special Leave Petitions.
7. One of the objects of providing that appearances and
filings in this Court shall be only by or through Advocates-on- G
Record (unless the party appears in person) is to ensure that
"""" Advocates well versed with the Supreme Court Rules and
experienced in drafting the petitions (with list of dates), will
~

\ prepare and file them. That object will be defeated, if petitions
are filed by Advocates-on-Record without verifying the facts or
H
1572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.
. r..,

;.' .. '.
A without preparing proper synopsis/list of dates. We also )-

frequently come across special leave petitions, where the
Advocates-on-Record who filed them do not appear;· Even when
asked to appear, they are not able to answer queries regarding
the petitions filed in their names, thereby indicating that the
B petitions were filed in their names, by others. This unhealthy
practice of Advocates-on-Record merely lending their names
for filing SLPs or for entering 'appearances', without taking the
responsibility for the proper preparation and filing of the SLPs,
or the responsibility for proper appearances in the cases,
C requires to be deprecated. ·
8. It is with some reluctance and hesitation that we have
drawn attention of the Advocates-on-record to the above
aspects. We make it clear that :
-- the purpose of these observations is not to find fault with
D the Advocates-on-Record in general, but to focus their
attention on areas that require improvement, to ensure that
the litigant public are served better and to reduce delay
and expense to the litigant; and
- these SLPs. are rejected not on the ground of any defect
E in drafting, but on merits; the general observations in para '
l-
5 onwards are not with reference to these petitions, which
are well-drafted except the error in the list of dates.
The Registry is requested to place a copy of this ord~r
before the Hon. Chief Justice of India, for his kind consideration
F and if he so deems fit, to send a copy to the Supreme Court t
Advocates-on-Record Association. l
.,
R.P. Petitions rejected.

/

I
c
...
t,.

~
;