The need for urgent action to ensure speedy disposal of cases to maintain faith in the judiciary.

ORDER

1.This appeal by special leave has been filed by Rajindra Singh, (since deceased) whose legal representatives have been brought on record, against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 16th September, 1999 in Execution Second Appeal No. 870/1976 whereby the Second Appeal filed by the defendant-appellant has been dismissed.

2.The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Smt. Prem Mai and Sudha Mai filed a suit for declaration and possession of the suit land in the Trial Court being Suit No. 487/57. The said suit was decreed against the appellant herein on 21.9.63. Aggrieved against that decree, the appellant-defendant preferred an appeal which was allowed on 16.4.64 and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was reversed by the First Appellant Court. The First Appellant Court was of the view that the defendant-appellant was in cultivatory possession of the land in dispute since before the commencement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, and the suit was barred by time in view of Section 180 U.P. Tenancy Act, and hence the defendant had become a Sirdar.

3.Aggrieved against that, the respondent herein preferred Second Appeal before the High Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 10.2.1971 and the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court was affirmed. It appears that during the pendency of the suit the Trial Court had appointed a receiver (one Pitamber Singh) who took possession of the suit land. Also, Prem Mai and Sudha Mai purported to gift the suit land to the D.A.V. College Trust. After the suit was dismissed by the First Appellate Court and the said dismissal was affirmed by the High Court, the question arose about restitution of the land in question to the defendant-appellant under Section 144 C.P.C.. However, by order dated 13.8.75 the restitution application was rejected. Aggrieved against that order, the matter was taken up in first appeal which was dismissed on 2.4.76 and then to the High Court in second appeal which was dismissed on 6.9.99. All the courts having dismissed the restitution proceedings, the appellant is before us by way of the present appeal.

4.We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

5.From the bare facts it is apparent that the suit against the appellant was dismissed by the First Appellate Court which held that the appellant is the Sirdar of the land in question, and that judgment has been affirmed by the High Court on 10.2.71 in S.A. 215 of 1964, which order became final. Hence in the ordinary course the appellant would be entitled to possession of the suit land. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court by its order dated 6.9.99 and courts below cannot be sustained.

6.However, we have been informed by learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 that after these proceedings were over, the defendant-appellant had entered into an agreement to sell with respondent No. 2 for sale of the suit land. An application for bringing on record these subsequent facts has been filed by respondent No. 2. Since that agreement to sell was not acted upon, respondent No. 2 has filed a civil suit being Suit No. 242 of 2002 before the Civil Judge, Dehradun for enforcement of the said agreement, and the legal representatives of the appellant have also filed a suit against respondent No. 2. In the said proceedings an interim order of status quo has been passed in April, 2002 by the Trial Court. However, this is not the subject matter before us and we do not wish to express any opinion on this issue. So far as the present case is concerned, we are of the opinion that after the title of Rajindra Singh (since deceased) has been upheld by the High Court on 10.2.71 he or his legal representatives would ordinarily have been entitled to take possession of the suit land. Therefore, the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in the impugned order dated 6.9.99 ca