Judicial efficiency requires timely pronouncement of judgments; delay beyond established standards compromises legal processes and affects financial stability of litigants.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done by video conferencing.

2. The Petitioners' grievance in the present petition is that an ex parte order was passed by the trial court on 17th August, 2020 restraining the construction/erection/installation of a cellular tower over property bearing no. RZ-1, Khasra No.264 and 268, Village Nasir Pur, Ashok Park, West Sagar Pur, New Delhi. The Petitioners moved an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC before the ld. ASCJ, Patiala House Courts, however, both the injunction application and the application seeking vacation have not been heard for several months. On one occasion the trial court had heard the matter but did not pass orders and the Petitioner no.1 company is incurring huge expenses, making payments to the Corporation and other authorities and still unable to make the tower operational.

3. Ld. counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 5, who are the original Plaintiffs in the suit, appear in the matter and submit that they have not delayed the matter. Ld. counsel for the SDMC is also present.

4. A perusal of the order sheet of the trial court shows that the matter has been repeatedly adjourned since August, 2020, after the ex parte order was granted. Hearing has, in fact, taken place on 16th September, 2020, and a Status Report has also been filed on behalf of the SDMC. Hearing was again conducted on 12th November, 2020 and the matter was listed for clarification/order on 20th November, 2020. Thereafter, the Judicial Officer changed and the matter has been adjourned for arguments on various dates.

5. Considering the fact that the Petitioner is expressing an urgency in the matter and that the applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC have been pending since August, 2020, it is directed that the said applications be taken up on 5th February, 2021. After hearing the parties, orders on both the applications shall be passed by the Trial Court within a period of 30 days.

6. This Court has repeatedly emphasised that once arguments are heard by a Court, listing the matter for clarification/order is not permissible, which is what the judicial officer presiding initially has done in the present case. It needs no further emphasis that once arguments are heard by the Trial Court, within a reasonable period, as held, orders would have to be pronounced. This has been repeatedly settled by the Supreme Court in Balaji Baliram Mupade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 3564/2020, decided on 29th October, 2020) as also by this Court in Deepti Khera v. Siddharth Khera, (CM (M) 1637/2019, decided on 18th November, 2019). The observations in Deepti Khera (supra) are set out below:

"6. It is the settled position in law, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 that once matters are reserved for orders, usually, the same should be pronounced within a time schedule. In Anil Rai (supra) it has been observed as under:

"8. The intention of the legislature regarding pronouncement of judgments can be inferred from the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (1) of Section 353 of the Code provides that the judgment in every trial in any criminal court of original jurisdiction, shall be pronounced in open court immediately after the conclusion of the trial or on some subsequent time for which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders. The words "some subsequent time" mentioned in Section 353 contemplate the passing of the judgment without undue delay, as delay in the pronouncement of judgment is opposed to the principle of law. Such subsequent time can at the most be stretched