Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Yashpal Jain - Appellant
Versus
Sushila Devi & Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.4296 Of 2023
Decided On : 20-10-2023
(A) Administration of Justice – Judicial Delays – Underlying factors – Causes of delay are numerous loopholes in law itself, redundant and voluminous paper work, absence of witnesses, adjournments sought and granted for no justifiable reason as also delay in service of summons, lack of implementation of provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and Code of Criminal Procedure – Time and again various provisions of C.P.C. and Cr.P.C. have been amended to cater ever-increasing demands for speedy disposal of cases and results are not inspiring – There is urgent need to take pro-active steps to not only clear huge backlog of cases at all levels but there should be introspection by all stakeholders to gear up to meet aspirations of litigant public who would only seek for speedy justice and to curtail methods adopted to delay proceedings which may suit certain section or class of litigant public – When millions of consumers of justice file their cases by knocking at doors of courts of first instance, they expect speedy justice – When efficiency has become hallmark of modern civilization and in all spheres of life there is an urgent need to hasten pace of delivery of justice by reducing time period occupied by trial of suits and criminal proceedings as also offshoots of such litigation which results in revisions, appeals etc. arising out of them. (Paras 19 and 20)
(B) Administration of Justice – Judicial Delays – Underlying factors – Answer to an irresponsible suit or litigation would be a vigilant Judge – An onerous responsibility rests on shoulders of Presiding Officer of every court, who should be cautious and vigilant against such indolent acts and persons who attempt to thwart quick dispensation of justice – Response is expected from all parties involved, with a special emphasis on Presiding Officer – Presiding Officer must exercise due diligence to ensure that proceedings are conducted efficiently and without unnecessary delays – While it's important to maintain a friendly and cooperative atmosphere with members of Bar, this should not be misused as a pretext for frequent adjournment requests – Members of Bar should be circumspect in seeking adjournments, that too in old matters or matters which have been pending for decades and desist from making request or prayer for grant of adjournments for any reason whatsoever and should not take goodness of Presiding Officer as his/her weakness – It is on account of non-application of many provisions of CPC by Presiding Officers of courts is one of reason or cause for delay in proceedings or disputes not reaching to its logical conclusion. (Paras 28 and 29)
(C) Administration of Justice – Judicial Delays – Swift and efficient judiciary is a cornerstone of democracy, a bulwark against tyranny, and guarantor of individual liberties – Voices of oppressed, rights of marginalized, claims of aggrieved, all are rendered hollow when justice is deferred – Every pending case represents a soul in limbo, waiting for closure and vindication – Every delay is an affront to the very ideals that underpin our legal system – Concept of justice delayed is justice denied is not a mere truism, but an irrefutable truth – Time for procrastination is long past, for justice cannot be a casualty of bureaucratic inefficiency – Time is now and justice waits for no one – Directions –
i. All courts at district and Taluka levels shall ensure proper execution of summons and in a time bound manner as prescribed under Order V Rule (2) of CPC and same shall be monitored by Principal District Judges and after collating statistics they shall forward the same to be placed before committee constituted by High Court for its consideration and monitoring.
ii. All courts at District and Taluka level shall ensure that written statement is filed within prescribed limit namely as prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 and preferably within 30 days and to assign reasons in writing as to why time limit is being extended beyond 30 days as indicated under proviso to sub-Rule (1) of Order VIII of CPC.
iii. All courts at Districts and Talukas shall ensure after pleadings are complete, parties should be called upon to appear on the day fixed as indicated in Order X and record admissions and denials and court shall direct parties to suit to opt for either mode of settlement outside court as specified in sub-Section (1) of Section 89 and at the option of parties shall fix date of appearance before such forum or authority and in the event of parties opting to any one of modes of settlement directions be issued to appear on the date, time and venue fixed and parties shall so appear before such authority/forum without any further notice at such designated place and time and it shall also be made clear in reference order that trial is fixed beyond period of two months making it clear that in the event of ADR not being fruitful, trial would commence on next day so fixed and would proceed on day-to-day basis.
iv. In the event of the party’s failure to opt for ADR namely resolution of dispute as prescribed under Section 89(1) court should frame the issues for its determination within one week preferably, in open court.
v. Fixing of date of trial shall be in consultation with Advocates appearing for parties to enable them to adjust their calendar – Once date of trial is fixed, trial should proceed accordingly to extent possible, on day-to-day basis.
vi. Trial Judges of District and Taluka Courts shall as far as possible maintain diary for ensuring that only such number of cases as can be handled on any given day for trial and complete recording of evidence so as to avoid overcrowding of cases and as a sequence of it would result in adjournment being sought and thereby preventing any inconvenience being caused to stakeholders.
vii. Counsel representing parties may be enlightened of provisions of Order XI and Order XII so as to narrow down scope of dispute and it would be also onerous responsibility of Bar Associations and Bar Councils to have periodical refresher courses and preferably by virtual mode.
viii. Trial courts shall scrupulously, meticulously and without fail comply with provisions of Rule 1 of Order XVII and once trial has commenced it shall be proceeded from day to day as contemplated under the proviso to Rule (2).
ix. Courts shall give meaningful effect to provisions for payment of cost for ensuring that no adjournment is sought for procrastination of litigation and opposite party is suitably compensated in the event of such adjournment is being granted.
x. At conclusion of trial oral arguments shall be heard immediately and continuously and judgment be pronounced within period stipulated under Order XX of CPC.
xi. Statistics relating to cases pending in each court beyond 5 years shall be forwarded by every Presiding Pfficer to the Principal District Judge once in a month who (Principal District Judge/District Judge) shall collate the same and forward it to review committee constituted by respective High Courts for enabling it to take further steps.
xii. Committee so constituted by Chief Justice of respective States shall meet at least once in two months and direct such corrective measures to be taken by concerned court as deemed fit and shall also monitor old cases (preferably which are pending for more than 05 years) constantly. (Paras 37 and 39)
Facts of the case:
Points for consideration are:
(i) Whether impugned order dated 28.11.2019 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No.144 of 2013 quashing orders dated 13.12.2012 rendered in Civil Revision No.4 of 2012 by High Court whereby order dated 09.05.2012 passed by trial court allowing impleadment application filed by appellant herein had been rejected, is to be sustained or set aside?
(ii) Whether any further direction or directions requires to be issued for concluding proceedings in a time bound manner on account of Suit No.2 of 1985 pending for trial for past 41 years?
Findings of Court:
We stand at a crossroads, not of our choosing but of our duty where urgency of legal reforms in our judiciary cannot be overstated, for pendulum of justice must swing unimpeded. Edifice of our democracy depends on a judiciary that dispenses justice not as an afterthought but as a paramount mission. We must adapt, we must reform, and we must ensure that justice is not a mirage but a tangible reality for all.
Secretary General is directed to circulate copy of this judgment to Registrar General of all High Courts for being placed before respective Chief Justices for a consideration and suitable steps being taken.
Result : Civil Appeal allowed. Directions issued.
JUDGMENT :
(Aravind Kumar, J.)
PREFACE
1. Even after 41 years, the parties to this lis are still groping in the dark and litigating as to who should be brought on record as legal representative of the sole plaintiff Mrs. Urmila Devi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Urmila Devi’ for the sake of brevity). This is a classic case and a mirror to the fact that litigant public may become disillusioned with judicial processes due to inordinate delay in the legal proceedings, not reaching its logical end, and moving at a snail’s pace due to dilatory tactics adopted by one or the other party. The said suit, OS No.2 of 1982, was instituted for the relief to declare the sale deed, executed by Shri Mangal Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘first defendant’ for the sake of convenience) in favour of defendants No.4 to 32 in respect of the suit properties described in the plaints schedule as item No.1 to 8, to be null and void by claiming to be the owner of the said properties; and for a decree of possession of the suit properties with costs.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:
2. When the aforesaid suit was still at infancy stage the sole-plaintiff expired on 18.05.2007. One Mr. Manoj Kumar Jain filed an application to substitute him as her legal heir, by placing reliance on the Will dated 19.05.1999 and claiming to be a legatee under the said registered Will. He also filed an affidavit stating thereunder that Mr. Yashpal Jain (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’ for the sake of convenience) was a witness to the said registered Will. The defendants objected to the said application contending inter alia that the appellant herein was the adopted son of late Urmila Devi by relying upon the adoption deed dated 06.01.1973 duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar. In the said proceedings, the present appellant also filed an affidavit stating thereunder that he was a witness to the Will dated 19.05.1999 executed by Urmila Devi in favour of Manoj Kumar Jain. The application filed by Manoj Kumar Jain came to be allowed by order dated 24.02.2010.
2.1 Being aggrieved by the said Order the legal heirs of the first defendant namely, legal heirs of Mangal Singh, filed a Civil Revision No.2 of 2010 before the District Judge which came to be allowed by setting aside the Order of the Trial Court on the ground that applicant had stated during the course of the revisional proceedings that he would not press the said application and as such directed the Trial Court to consider the application filed by Yashpal Jain-appellant herein and permitted him to file an application seeking condonation of delay along with the application to bring on record the legal representatives of the sole plaintiff, since he had failed to do so earlier. Accordingly, revision application came to be allowed by order dated 02.12.2011 and Mr. Yashpal Jain filed an application before the Trial Court for condoning the delay in filing such application and also prayed for abatement of suit to be set aside. The learned Trial Judge vide Order dated 09.05.2012 allowed the application by setting aside the abatement and permitted Yashpal Jain to be substituted as legal representative of late Urmila Devi.
3. At this juncture, we would like to point out that a careful perusal of the application and the orders passed by the courts below would indicate that the parties and the courts below seem to have proceeded on the footing that they were to adjudicate the rights of a legal heir which if seen in the light of expression used in the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) is impermissible, as it is not referable to ‘legal heir’ but ‘legal representative’ as defined under Section 2 (11) which reads:
The court condemns the misuse of adjournments and emphasizes the importance of timely justice delivery. It calls for a change in work culture to discourage unnecessary adjournments and maintain the r....
Trial courts justified in closing defence evidence after adjournments exceeding statutory limit of two under BNSS Section 346; fair trial does not permit endless adjournments defeating speedy justice....
In summons trials, closing complainant's evidence justified for repeated non-appearance despite warnings and no exemption application; routine adjournments not permissible, courts must enforce day-to....
Order sheets conclusively record trial proceedings; repeated adjournments despite directions to produce evidence not permitted under fair trial; inherent powers sparingly invoked against closing evid....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
