IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
A. Manimaran - Petitioner
Versus
Jesintha Priyadharshini and 2 Ors. – Respondents
C.R.P.No.179 of 2023
Decided On : 01-02-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Attempting to drag on proceedings - Dispose of Suit as expeditiously as possible - Revision petitioner made a submission that other parties to Suit are attempting to drag on proceedings and therefore, Trial Court is to be directed to dispose of Suit as expeditiously as possible - Held, Every litigant approaching Court of Law is waiting for justice and thus, it must be done in a consistent manner and without discriminating litigants - Therefore issuing directions indiscriminately for speedy disposal of cases by District Judiciary would do no service to cause of justice - Every urgency cannot be considered for issuing a direction for speedy disposal, urgency, which is imminent to be considered - High Court cannot issue such directions for speedy disposal unless there is a justification or acceptable reason for issuing any such directions - Court concerned is expected to regulate its own procedures in respect of cases on Board for effective disposal and to ensure that cases are disposed of within a reasonable period of time - Petition disposed of.
ORDER :
[Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the Learned Subordinate Judge at Bhavani to dispose the Suit in O.S.No.168 of 2020 within a time frame fixed by this Court.]
1. The relief sought for in the present civil revision petition is to direct the Subordinate Court, Bhavani to dispose of the Suit in O.S.No.168 of 2020.
2. The revision petitioner is the 1st defendant and the respondents 1 and 2 instituted a Suit for partition. The Suit was instituted in the year 2020 and the 1st defendant/revision petitioner herein made a submission that the other parties to the Suit are attempting to drag on the proceedings and therefore, the Trial Court is to be directed to dispose of the Suit as expeditiously as possible.
3. Unnecessary adjournments on flimsy grounds would cause prejudice to the parties to the litigation. Rule is to conduct the case on the date it is posted for hearing. Adjournment is an exception. Thus, adjournments are to be granted only on genuine grounds and even in such circumstances, on commencement of trial long adjournments are to be avoided. The reason is to be recorded by the Courts, if it is genuine.
4. Long pendency of litigations causing untold mental agony to the litigants are to be considered by the Courts concerned, while granting adjournments in a routine manner. Any party seeking adjournment on flimsy grounds or attempting to prolong and protract the case, then heavy cost is to be awarded, which is to be paid to the other party, who is ready to conduct the case. If such adjournments are frequently sought for, then exemplary or maximum costs are to be awarded by the Court concerned. The endeavour of the Court is to ensure that the cases are disposed of as expeditiously as possible by avoiding unnecessary adjournments.
5. High Court cannot issue directions to the District Judiciary for speedy disposal of cases in a routine manner. Frequent directions if issued, the same cannot be a practical solution. The trust on the District Judiciary due to overburdening of litigation on Board is to be taken into consideration by the High Court. The routine directions for speedy disposal, if it is issued, it would further cause unnecessary pressure on the District Judiciary. In many such cases, wherein directions are issued, the District Judiciary has come out with administrative letter, seeking extension of time again and again and thus, the purpose for which such directions were issued by the High Court became defeated.
6. The longevity of the litigations are occurring at the instance of the parties on many occasions. The legal brains are adopting tactical approach to prolong and protract the cases for unjust gains and for Forum Shopping. Any party having an idea to achieve their goal in an indirect or illegal manner, then they are adopting all such tactics for the purpose of prolonging the case, which cannot be tolerated by the Courts. On some occasion, if any litigants feel that a particular Judicial Officer in the District Judiciary is inconvenient to them, they are seeking adjournments after adjournments or filing frivolous interlocutory applications through which they all are causing longevity to the litigation. Ill-motives of such litigants if allowed to succeed, then the same will result in miscarriage of justice and thus the Courts are expected to be cautious, while granting unnecessary adjournments on flimsy grounds. All such attempts should be thwarted by the Courts and the Court cannot aid such ill-motive of the parties. The frivolous and unnecessary interlocutory applications are to be dealt with in accordance with law and if the Court formed an opinion that such interlocutory applications are filed with an idea to prolong and protract the issues or filed with ill-motives, then the Court would not hesitate in awarding exemplary or maximum cost on such applications. The cases are to be disposed of in consistent manner to avoid unnecessary allegati
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.