( 1 ) THE impleadment application of Shri Ram Gopal Verma and Shri Shiv shanker Verma as appellant Nos. 5 and 6 was allowed by this Court on 5. 8. 2003. The impleadment has been carried out.

( 2 ) A compromise application under Order XIII Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure of the claim regarding the share of, and as far as Shri Laxmi Nath and Shri Padmnath (respondent Nos. 1/2 and 1/3) verified by the registrar General of this Court date 23. 9. 2003 is pending. The application encloses the affidavits of Laxmi Nath and Shri padamnath both sons of late Brij Bhushan stating that they have no concern with the house in dispute. The application is allowed. Both these applicants shall be treated to have given up their claims as against the appellants.

( 3 ) THE dispute relates to house No. 46/35 and 46/36 Mohalla Manihari Tola, dashashwamedh Ward, Varanasi. The upper portion of the house No. 46/35 has fallen down. House No. 46/36 has three floors. The first and second floors of this house was vacated by shri Sheo Sahai Ojha in favour of the appellants Laxmi Narain and others in pursuance to a release order passed by Asstt. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi on which these floors were occupied by the appellants.

( 4 ) O. S. No. 446 of 1964 was filed by Laxmi narain Upadhyaya and others, the plaintiff-appellants against Mangla Prasad Singh and others, the defendants, for their ejectment from house No. 46/35 and ground floor of house No. 46/36, and for a decree of rs. 1440/- for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month, pendentelite and future mesne profits. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court on 18. 12. 1968. The Civil appeal No. 35 of 1969 was, however, allowed by the 1st Addl. Civil Judge, Varanasi on 22. 7. 1969 and the suit stood dismissed.

( 5 ) THIS second appeal is pending in this court for 37 years. The order sheet bears testimony of the casual manner in which the second appeals are dealt with by the counsels for the parties. Repeated illness slips, adjournments and applications, which were lost and found, show a total lack of concern for expediency as well as lack of concern of case flow management in the Court. The fate of the case hangs in the hands of counsels, who are not accountable to the Court at all. The office of the Court has no priorities and the cases are listed, as and when the Section Officers or the Registrar (Listing) desire. The Court has not fixed responsibilities on the officers manning the registry, for explaining as to why the old cases are not listed and instead new cases are shown in the cause list. In this second appeal the first service report was given by the office, after eight years on 38. 3. 1977. Reminders after reminders were sent for service of summons. On 19. 7. 1982 the Court made observations about the manner in which the process servers, serve the summons of the High Court. They do not take trouble to visit the noticee for the second time. The reports not met are given in a routine manner on which fresh steps are directed to be taken again and again. The substitution application filed in 1982, could be decided for six years. The matter was out of list between 1993 to 1995 and then again from 1995 to 1998 when it was not listed at all, and again from the year 2003 to 2006 inspite of the order dated 1. 9. 2003 that it should be listed immediately after the application for compromise and additional evidence are traced out. The counsel for the appellant insisted that the application for additional evidence was filed on record but could not substantiate it as his office did not even served a copy on the respondents. During all these years that passed by, the counsels sent illness slips, whenever they desired and got the matter adjourned on their own convenience.

( 6 ) IN between there has been further litigation and more and more parties in the appeal expired. A stage has now reached where in order to decide cases quickly, and to restore confidence of people in the judiciary,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document