ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 08-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of admission and I intend to dispose of the present petition at the stage of admission itself.

02. The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking direction to the learned Sub Judge, VI, Patna City to dispose of Title Suit No. 159 of 2012 expeditiously.

03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come before this Court with simple prayer for expeditious disposal of the title suit pending before the learned Sub Judge, VI, Patna City. The learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court has not followed the mandate of Section 20 C of the Specific Relief Act which provides for disposal of suit for specific performance within a statutory period of one year which is extendable by further six months, but the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance is pending since 2012 and it is still at the stage of the evidence of the defendants. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the learned trial court be directed to hear the matter without giving unnecessary adjournments and dispose of the suit as early as possible.

04. The position of the litigants before the civil courts leave much to desire. No doubt, the courts are overburdened including civil courts. But that could not be any reason to grant unnecessary adjournments and the Courts must be on alert against evil designs of unscrupulous litigants who use the process of law and the proceedings before the civil courts to their undue advantage. The observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yashpal Jain Vs. Sushila Devi and Ors., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1377 becomes quite apposite in the present circumstances. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-1 has observed as under:-

“1. Even after 41 years, the parties to this lis are still groping in the dark and litigating as to who should be brought on record as legal representative of the sole plaintiff Mrs. Urmila Devi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Urmila Devi’ for the sake of brevity). This is a classic case and a mirror to the fact that litigant public may become disillusioned with judicial processes due to inordinate delay in the legal proceedings, not reaching its logical end, and moving at a snail's pace due to dilatory tactics adopted by one or the other party. The said suit, OS No. 2 of 1982, was instituted for the relief to declare the sale deed, executed by Shri Mangal Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘first defendant’ for the sake of convenience) in favour of defendants No. 4 to 32 in respect of the suit properties described in the plaints schedule as item No. 1 to 8, to be null and void by claiming to be the owner of the said properties; and for a decree of possession of the suit properties with costs.”

Thereafter, in Paragraph-47, the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued the following directions:-

47. The following directions are issued:

i. All courts at district and taluka levels shall ensure proper execution of the summons and in a time bound manner as prescribed under Order V Rule (2) of CPC and same shall be monitored by Principal District Judges and after collating the statistics they shall forward the same to be placed before the committee constituted by the High Court for its consideration and monitoring.

ii. All courts at District and Taluka level shall ensure that written statement is filed within the prescribed limit namely as prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 and preferably within 30 days and to assign reasons in writing as to why the time limit is being extended beyond 30 days as indicated under proviso to sub-Rule (1) of Order VIII of CPC.

iii. All courts at Districts and Talukas shall ensure after the pleadings are complete, the parties should be called upon to appear on the day fixed as indicated in Order X and record the admissions and denials and the court shall direct the parties to the suit to opt for either mode of the settlement outside the court as speci