B. PRAKASH RAO, J:- This case has come up before us for consideration of an important question concerning the Subordinate Courts and in regard to the procedure to be adopted in a given situation, especially, as to whether the Presiding Officers of the Courts below should file an affidavit duly sworn to by them in support of the applications seeking extension of the period, which has been prescribed for or ordered by this Court, while disposing of the main cases, for disposal.

2. Heard Sri M V. Durga Prasad, learned Counsel, Sri MRK Chowdary, learned Senior Counsel, Sri D. V. Sitharammurthy, learned Counsel, the President of the A.P. High Court Advocates' Association and the learned Advocate-General.

3. Shorn of the details, which are not necessary for the present purpose, the sequel of events giving rise to the situations commence with the ‘For being’ note put up by the Registry:

“In an instance, through a letter dated 3.2.2001 in Dis.No.362, when the Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, has requested the Registry for extension of time for a period of two months, for disposal of the case in L.R.A. No.1 14 of 1992, while extending time for disposal of the appeal by four weeks, by the order dated 23.3.2001, Hon’ble Sri Satyabrata Sinha, the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice, observed thus:

“NB :-Office should treat the aforementioned letter dated 3.2.2001 as a miscellaneous application and number the same. The Registry is hereby directed to issue a Circular to all the Judicial Officers that they should not henceforth issue letters seeking extension of time on the administrative side.”

4. It is a matter of common practice that wile disposing of the cases be it on civil side or criminal side or otherwise on original, writ proceedings etc., the directions are given to the Courts below for disposal of those cases in a given period having regard to the urgency and with a view to put an early end to the dispute. However, in situations where such directions could not be complied with and those cases could not possibly be disposed of within that particular period. Prior to the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice (as he then was) and at various points of time later, the Presiding Officers of those Courts have been regularly writing letters to the Registry seeking extension of time, so as to comply the directions and dispose of the same within the extended period. Many times they have shown the reasons for such non-disposal within said the time limit. Now, it has been pointed out by the Office of this Court that pursuant to the above directions as mentioned above, the Registry has given effect to the first part alone but did not issue any directions or Circular to the concerned, in the manner which it has to be strictly required to be followed up. Such letters are being treated on the Judicial Side and were directed to be posted under the caption "For Direction" on the first page of the Cause List by treating them as miscellaneous petitions.

However, the Registry has noted as under:

“It is further respectfully submitted that pursuant to the above direction, the Registry has given effect to the first part alone, but inadvertently omitted to give effect to the second part and thereby issued a Circular to various sections of the Registry, directing all the filing sections to forward the letters received from the Judicial Officers seeking extension of time to comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Courts to the Scrutiny Officers Section, further directing that the Scrutiny Officers Section shall treat them as miscellaneous petitions, process the same and after numbering, send them to the concerned filing sections to enable the filing sections to post the miscellaneous petitions before the Hon’ble Courts under the caption 'For Direction' in the first page of the Cause List.

It is still further respectfully submitted that the direction given by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice in relati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document