The court established the necessity of procedural efficiency in ongoing litigation, emphasizing expeditious resolution while adhering to relevant judicial protocols.

JUDGMENT

The original petition has been filed challenging Ext.P25 order whereby the work memos submitted by the parties to the suit, to the Advocate Commissioner, have been rejected finding that they have been given for prolonging the litigation. The suits were filed as early as from 1992 onwards and this original petition is pending here from 2014 onwards. No purpose will be served by retaining this original petition any longer and the suits which have been filed necessarily have to be taken to their logical end. The only reason stated in the impugned order is that the suits could not be heard due to “strong contentions from the parties”. Such reasons can never weigh to the court for rejecting work memos filed. Since an Advocate Commissioner has already been deputed it is only just and proper that all the aspects which have been sought to be reported by the parties are brought on record so that there can be a complete adjudication of the disputes involved. There are 4 suits which are jointly being tried and issues are different in the 4 suits and different aspects will have to be verified by the Commissioner. The order Ext.P25 cannot be sustained.

The original petition is allowed. The court below is directed to call for a report based on the work memos submitted by the parties and proceed with the trial of the cases. Since the matter is very old, all endeavour shall be taken to complete the entire process ending in a disposal of the suits, within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The court below shall ensure that only issues involved in the suit are included in the work memos and nothing more. In case there are disputes regarding the issues which are involved in the suits, the said aspect shall also be decided by the court below before issuance of a commission.