Back
2018 Supreme(HP) 573
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, J.
Jagdeep Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Lokinder Singh & ors. - Respondents
Cr.MMO No. 277 of 2018
Decided on : 01-08-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Neeraj Maniktala, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. R.P. Singh and Mr. Kunal Thakur, Dy. AGs
Efficient court management and timely fixing of trial dates are essential to address high case pendency.
Headnote:
Court Management - Fixing of Trial Dates - The court directed the trial judge to prepone the date fixed in a pending criminal case and not to fix long dates in cases at the service stage, filing reply/written statement, replication, and settlement of issues.
Fact of the Case:
The comments furnished by the trial judge were found unsatisfactory, leading to a direction to prepone the date fixed in a pending criminal case and not to fix long dates in cases at the service stage.
Finding of the Court:
The court disagreed with the comments submitted by the trial judge and directed the parties to appear in the trial court on a specific date.
Issues: Court management and fixing of trial dates
Ratio Decidendi: The solution to the high pendency in the court is not to fix long dates, especially in cases at the service stage, and suitable adjustments of cause lists should be made to avoid rendering the court in a state of helplessness.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, and the trial judge was directed to comply with the court's directions.
DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, J.
1. Heard.
2. The comments furnished by learned trial Judge consequent upon the order passed on the previous date have been perused and not found satisfactory.
3. The pendency in the Court may be on higher side, however, the solution is not to fix long dates ranging 7-8 months that too in the cases which are at the stage of service of the opposite party. At a later stage i.e. recording of the evidence etc. one can adjust the cause list of course as per the Norms and High Court Rules and Orders so that large number of cases are not fixed for the purpose rendering thereby the Court in a state of helplessness in recording the evidence in all the cases. However, the cases at the stage of service, not consumes much time, cannot be adjourned for such a longer date(s).
4. Therefore, while disagreeing with the comments submitted by the learned trial Judge, there shall be a direction to prepone the date fixed in the pending criminal case State vs. Jyoti Thakur etc. and fix the same at an early date by way of suitable adjustment of cause list. There shall also be a direction to learned trial Judge not to fix such long dates in the cases which are at service stage, filing reply/written statement, replication and settlement of issues etc.
5. The parties through learned Counsel representing them are directed to appear in the trial Court on 20.8.2018.
6. The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any,
7. An authenticated copy of this judgment be sent to learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala for circulation amongst the Presiding Judges of each and every court in Kangra Civil & Sessions Division (HP) and learned trial Judge, for compliance.
