Litigants Have No 'Kangaroo Right' To Hop Around Jurisdiction On Whims: Allahabad HC Criticizes 'Forum Hopping'
The Allahabad High Court condemned the practice of "forum hopping," where petitioners choose to file legal petitions in different jurisdictions based on their convenience, without valid justifications.
The Court emphasized that while the Individual filing a case is entitled to file in a court of their preference, it does not confer an unrestricted authority to shift jurisdictions arbitrarily.
“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”, the Bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manish Kumar observed.
Advocate Chandra Kala Pandey appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Gaurav Mehrotra appeared for the Respondent.
The Petitioner claimed to be a tenant of a house built upon Nazul land. The plot was registered under the name of Smt. Chandrakala Devi. Later, approval was granted for the conversion of the said Nazul Land into freehold in favour of the legal heirs of late Smt. Chandrakala Devi. Thereafter, a sale deed was executed in favour of the Respondents.
Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash a government policy, which revised rates for converting Nazul property into freeholds and introduced changes in the Nazul policy.
The Court noted that the Petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of disclosing whether they filed any writ petition earlier, as required by Chapter 22, Rule 1 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (Rules). The Petitioner claimed that the petition pertains to a cause of action in Lucknow, but they admitted to filing two earlier petitions at Allahabad regarding the same property. The Bench noted that filing this petition in Lucknow is considered forum hunting and not per the principle of forum conveniens, as settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v Union of India and Another [(2004) 6 SCC 254].
Furthermore, the Court observed that Courts can exercise inherent jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction, considering factors like the convenience of parties, witnesses, and the impact on proceedings. While the Petitioner has the right to choose jurisdiction, the repeated choice of Allahabad in prior petitions, now pending, should have been disclosed.
The Court emphasized the unique situation with Allahabad High Court, where records can't be summoned from Allahabad to Lucknow, which poses difficulties. The Court suggested a need for judicial discipline in choosing between Lucknow and Allahabad to avoid inconvenience and pending lists in a bifurcated manner. The recurring issue of disputes changing jurisdiction creates unnecessary hurdles, and there is a call for a solution to address such challenges, the Court added.
The Bench emphasized that though the Petitioner has the right to file a writ petition in any court of their choice, it still doesn't grant them an unrestricted right to change jurisdictions whimsically. The Court noted that the difficulties it faces are a result of the Petitioner's choices. The Bench observed that once a party selects a jurisdiction (either Allahabad or Lucknow), they should adhere to that choice when filing subsequent petitions.
The Bench noted that constantly changing forums is highly inconvenient for the court, and the Petitioner is expected to stick to their initial choice unless providing compelling reasons for changing.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Prem Prakash Yadav v Union Of India Thru Secy.Min.Of Urban Planning And Development (2023:AHC-LKO:76437-DB)
