Legal Dictation 107 words per minute, District Court, High Court Judgement, 100 wpm legal dictation
*The content provided is for educational and shorthand dictation purposes only
legal dictation 100 wpm
legal dictation 100 speed
legal dictation 80 wpm
legal dictation 90 speed
legal dictation 115 wpm
legal dictation 120 wpm
Allahabad High Court Judgement
Delhi High Court recruitment
Personal Assistant
Senior Personal Assistant
#ssc stenographer exam
#legal matters
#shorthand
#steno
#stenographer
#english
#dictation
#dictation80wpm
#englishdictation
#dictationforbeginners
#dictation_100wpm
#dictation80wpm
In the SLP filed in this Court, the appellant alleged that the LPA was filed without the permission of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Patna, that the then Registrar General and certain other officers of the Registry of the High Court were inimically disposed towards him, and it is based on the misrepresentation contained in the notes of Registrar (Inspection) dated 4.4.1996, an erroneous impression was given to the Chief Justice that the appellant filed the LPA against the decision of the learned single Judge, certain directions were given by the learned Chief Justice which has resulted in manifest injustice to him. In view of the above averments, a Bench of this Court, by order dated 9.7.1996 issued notice to the Registrar General, High Court of Patna, and directed that the entire papers may be placed before this Court for perusal at the next date of hearing. Accordingly, the matter came up before this Court on 12.8.1996.
We heard counsel. At the time of hearing of the appeal, it is common ground that the judgment passed by the learned single Judge dated 14.2.1996 was set aside by a Division Bench and the writ petition filed by the appellant stood dismissed. The judgment of the Division Bench is dated 7th of August, 1996.
The Registrar General of the Patna High Court has filed a detailed counter-affidavit dated 9.8.1996 enclosing a copy of the judgment passed by the Division Bench dated 7.8.1996. In particular, it was urged that the SLP has become infructuous in view of the subsequent events In our view, the submission is justified in law. All that was attacked in the SLP was the order of the Division Bench dated 5.4.1996 admitting the LPA. The final order passed by the Division Bench dated 7.8.1986 is not challenged. The appeal was admitted, the matter was heard and final decision has also been rendered. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the proceeding initiated has become infructuous. On this short ground this appeal should be dismissed. We hereby do so.
Before closing, one aspect very vehemently contended in the SLP, which had resulted in the issue of notice to Registrar General of the High Court and to call for the files, deserves to be considered. The complaint was that the LPA was filed in the High Court without obtaining the directions of the learned Chief Justice. The further complaint was that an erroneous impression was given to the learned Chief Justice that the appellant had filed the LPA against the decision of the learned single Judge and that erroneous impression has resulted in the learned Chief Justice giving certain directions in the matter. Certain vague and wild allegations have been made against the then Registrar General and other officers of the Registry to the effect that the said officers misled the learned Chief Justice to further their selfish ends and to harm the appellant.
The Registrar General in the counter-affidavit dated 9.8.1996 has denied the above allegations. The context in which a wrong noting was made by Registrar (Inspection) dated 4.4.96 has also been explained. The entire files were placed before us. We perused the entire files. It is has been that the learned Chief Justice, High Court of Patna by order dated 1.3.1996 directed to take steps to file an LPA against the judgment of the learned single Judge rendered. It was thereafter the LPA was filed. The draft of the LPA was also perused by the learned Chief Justice. 585 words
Негізгі бет Legal Dictation 107 words per minute, District Court, High Court Judgement, 100 wpm legal dictation
Пікірлер: 1