The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the appellate court to expedite the hearing and disposal of appeals, as outlined in Order 41 Rules 11, 11A, and 12 of the CPC.

1. India has emerged as an Information Technology Power House of the world, but not Indian Judiciary. Whether judicial accountability would include creation of paperless Court or atleast less paper Courts towards ensuring speedy justice is the issue indirectly arising for consideration in this case.

2. The first petitioner in both these Civil Revision Petitions / plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.592 of 2004 seeking relief of partition against her brothers and sister.

2.1. Parimalam, (D-3 in O.S.No.592 of 2004), who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.153 /2005 also sought similar relief of partition (of 1/5th share) in the above suit.

2.2. Both suits were decreed.

3. Aggrieved over the same, defendants 1 and 2 filed two separate appeals in A.S.Nos.131 of 2009 and 44 of 2008. These appeals are said to be pending for a period of five/four years and directions are sought for speedy disposal of those appeals.

4. It is seen that in both the appeals, the records were called for and the same were awaited from III Additional Sub Court at Coimbatore, which is located in the same campus, where the District Court is also situated, from 04.02.2009 onwards.

5. Perusal of the docket entry would go to show that from 2008/2009 till 16.04.2014, the appeal has been adjourned only on the ground that the records were awaited. There is no reason as to why the records were not sent to the District Court, Coimbatore, from III Additional Subordinate Court, which are situated, within the same campus and which are at walkable distance.

6. A.S.44 OF 2008 (as against O.S.No.153 of 2005) has been taken on file on 01.04.2008 and it has been made over to I Additional District Court on 28.04.2008. From 04.02.2009 onwards, the case has been adjourned only on the ground 'await records' till 15.04.2014. The entry 'Await records' has suffered ditto by 89 times. Out of 89 entries, only 2 to 3 entries read: “Judge on transfer, Judge on Leave and Judge on duty”. Excepting this, all other entries read 'Await Records'.

7. A.S.No.131 of 2009 (as against O.S.No.592 of 2004) has been taken on file on 03.02.2009 and made over to I Additional District Court on 06.01.2010. From 06.01.2010, the appeal has been adjourned only on the ground of 'Await records' till 16.04.2014. The last docket entry is 'Await records' by 25.06.2014, and the same entry has suffered “ditto” by 48 times.

8. The direction “calling for records” could have been complied with within 10 minutes, but it had not been implemented and the appeal is pending for nearly 5 to 6 years, only for want of records.

8.1. There is no justification on the part of the Sub Court, to have remained mute, without complying with the directions 'calling for records'.

8.2. There could have been no scope for calling for records had there been computerization at the level of Subordinate Courts.

8.3. In the era of Information and Communication Technology, where technology dictates the life-style, whether the Court is justified in not rendering timely justice and waiting for records for years together, when justice is the first promise of the Constitution; speedy justice is the fundamental right of the litigants; and when the whole world is moving at a rocket speed.

8.4. Dr.A.P.J.Abdul Kalam, the former President of India, on the eve of inauguration of the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal, on September 5, 2002 said, Judiciary is the guardian of the civilized life.

8.5. Mr. M.C.Chagla, the former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court said, “Courts exist for the convenience of the litigant and not in order to maintain any particular system of law or any particular system of administration.”

8.6. This saying is quoted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Naraina, AIR 1983 SC 46 @ 56.

8.7. Judicial system, which delays disposal of cases or resolution of disputes over decades can be said to have out-lived its utility (Law Commission of India, 131st Report (1988, 16)).

8.8. Reform