Kerala High Court: In a writ petition praying to set aside the complaint lodged by respondent 1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending before the First-Class Magistrate Court-I, Kottarakkara, Kollam, the Single Judge Bench of P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J. observed that a litigant could not dictate to the Court which Judge should or should not hear a case. The roster of cases was prepared by the Chief Justice, and the Judge to whom a case was allotted had the authority to decide whether or not to recuse from the matter, if necessary.
The Court noted that the petitioner had appeared in person through online mode and submitted that this Court ought to refrain from entertaining the present writ petition, as a cost had been imposed on the petitioner in an earlier proceeding. The petitioner declined to make any further submissions. The Court observed that the imposition of cost in one case would not automatically result in the imposition of cost in all subsequent cases filed by the petitioner. Each case, it was noted, would be decided on its own merits.
The Court observed that a litigant could not dictate to the Court which Judge should or should not hear a case. The roster of cases was prepared by the Chief Justice, and the Judge to whom a case was allotted had the authority to decide whether or not to recuse from the matter, if necessary. However, a litigant had no right to demand that a particular Judge avoid hearing the case assigned to them as per the roster. Allowing such a practice would set a dangerous precedent, enabling litigants to pick and choose Judges, which is impermissible.
The Court further noted that a Judge is duty-bound to hear matters allocated as per the roster notified by the Chief Justice. In the present instance, the case was, admittedly, assigned to the High Court under the prevailing roster. However, the petitioner was not willing to argue the case before the High Court. The submission made by the petitioner was, in itself, contemptuous. Nevertheless, the Court chose not to initiate any contempt proceedings, considering that the petitioner was appearing in person and might not be fully aware of the decorum expected in a court of law or the nature of appropriate submissions.
That said, it was also recorded that the petitioner had appeared before the High Court in other matters previously. The Court cautioned that if similar submissions were made in the future, appropriate action would be taken in accordance with the law.
As regards the present case, no steps had been taken by the petitioner to cure the defects as directed by this Court in the order dated 13-06-2025.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed for default.
[Asif Azad v. Jaimon baby, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 5096, decided on 08-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: ADV ASIF AZAD(PARTY-IN-PERSON)
For Respondent: CS HRITHWIK, SR PP
