SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
M.K. Bhargava - Appellant
Versus
Sukhdev Raj Arora - Respondent
CM(M) 258 of 2022 and CM Appl. 14252 of 2022 (exemption)
Decided On : 23-03-2022




Judicial efficiency is paramount; the High Court emphasized the need to expedite long-pending applications while acknowledging pandemic-related challenges.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXII Rule 3 - Petition seeking direction for timely disposal of pending matters before the trial court - Given the backlog due to COVID-19, while the court cannot impose strict deadlines, it advised for prompt action on pending applications - Specifically, a directive was issued to pronounce orders on an application pending since 2018. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Judicial Administration - Efficiency in the judicial process - Courts must strive to resolve cases expeditiously, especially those long pending - Continuous delays are unacceptable and necessitate active management of court schedules. (Paras 2-5)

Facts of the case:
The appellant petitioned the High Court to direct the trial court to expedite the disposal of a rent control case and an application under the CPC pending since 2018, taking into consideration the impact of the pandemic on court operations.

Findings of Court:
The High Court acknowledged the ongoing pandemic's influence but noted the lack of justification for prolonged delays, specifically directing the trial court to pronounce orders on the longstanding application.

Issues: The primary issues addressed included the need for timely judicial decisions and the propriety of persistent delays in addressing applications under the CPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that, even amidst pandemic challenges, judges must prioritize expeditious case handling and that unacceptable delays in judicial processes must be corrected promptly.

Result: Petition allowed in terms of expediting the disposal of pending matters before the trial court.

Table of Content
1. petition filed under article 227. (Para 1)
2. court acknowledges pandemic's impact on case management. (Para 2 , 3)
3. application pending unjustifiably; directive issued for resolution. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. petition allowed; applications disposed. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

C.Hari Shankar, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction to the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller ("learned SCJ-cum-RC") to decide ARC 59077/2016, pending before her, within six months and an application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), pending before her in a time bound frame.

2. Insofar as the prayer for deciding ARC 59077/2016 is concerned, it is not possible for this Court to pass any such peremptory direction, as the Court is unaware of the volume of work pending before the learned SCJ-cum-RC, especially in view of the manner in which work in courts has been affected over the past two years during the currency of the COVID 2019 pandemic.

3. As such, qua the prayer to dispose of ARC 59077/2016 within six months, I am only inclined to direct the learned SCJ-cum-RC to dispose of ARC 59077/2016 as expeditiously as possible and keeping in view its priority in the matters pending before her.

4. Insofar as the prayer for disposing of the application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the CPC is concerned, the order-sheets of the learned SCJ-cum-RC to which Mr. Suri has drawn my attention, indicate that this application has been pending since 2018. This fact is specifically noted by the learned SCJ-cum-SC in the order passed by her on 18th December, 2021. On the said date, the application was directed to be put up for orders/clarification on 5th January, 2022. Mr. Suri submits that the application has been heard and there is no need for any clarification in that regard. Subsequent order-sheets reveal that the matter has been directed to be re-notified "for the said purpose" on 20th January, 2022, 16th February, 2022, 4th March, 2022, 16th March, 2022 and, now, on 1st April, 2022.

5. There is obviously no justification for an application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the CPC remaining pending for orders for so many dates.

6. Accordingly, the learned SCJ-cum-RC is directed to ensure that orders on the said application are pronounced on 1st April, 2022.

7. The petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Miscellaneous applications stand dispose of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top