Supreme Court: A case pending for the past 41 years prompted the Division Bench of S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ. to request all stakeholders and issue directions for lower courts to curb judicial pendency.
Factual Background
The Court highlighted the dilemma that even after 41 years, the parties to the instant lis litigating for who should be brought in as the legal representative of the sole plaintiff. It was regarded as “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 deceased claimed to be Bhumidar and owner in possession of the land which was looked after by the first defendant, who happened to had fraudulently obtained Bhumidar Sanad which made her file an application under Section 137A of UP Act No.1 of 1951. The plaintiff expired on 18-05-2007 which led to the question of instant litigation on who will be the ‘legal heir’ or ‘legal representative’.
The Court considered the sustainability of the High Court’s order quashing the order allowing appellant’s impleadment, and requirement of further directions for conclusion of proceedings in a time bound manner for suit pending for past 41 years.
The Court regarded the rejection of appellant being the legal representative to result in the estate of deceased not being represented, suit would abate or put to silent death without claim being adjudicated on merits. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court. Regarding the appellant’s right over suit properties, the Court viewed that due to adoption propounded, it was an issue to be dealt with by the Trial Court and desisted from deciding even around the issue of Will.
Court’s Comments on Judicial Delayed
Regarding the comments on likelihood of litigant public getting disillusioned of justice delivery system due to delays, the Court measured the years of delay since 1982, and the numbers of orders passed. The Court listed the top three pendency of civil and criminal cases, dating back to 1952, 1953, 1959 and 1961. The Court listed the underlying factors behind judicial delays.
The Court pointed towards the efforts made and yet the ever-increasing demands for speedy disposal of cases and commented that “When millions of consumers of justice file their cases by knocking at the doors of the courts of first instance, they expect speedy justice. Thus, an onerous responsibility vests on all stakeholders to ensure that the people’s faith in this system is not eroded on account of delayed justice…. Peace and Tranquility in the society and harmonious relationship between the citizens are achieved on account of effective administration of justice and its delivery system, even the economic growth of a country is dependent on the robust Justice Delivery System which we have in our country.”
History of steps for curbing Judicial Delay
The Court highlighted about the issue of delay bothering stakeholders since ages, finger pointing towards the Civil Justice Committee in 1924 constituted to enquire issues relating to necessary improvements; High Court Arrears Committee of 1949 followed by the Law Commission’s 77th, 79th, 120th Reports; Malimath Committee; Delhi High Court’s pilot project titled ‘Zero Pendency Court Project Report’ and article titled “The Law’s Delays: Reforming Unnecessary Delay in Civil Litigation” by Melvin M Belli (a member of California Bar).
Reasons for delay
The Court listed the following reasons for delay in civil trial:
- Lack of strict compliance with CPC provisions;
- Misuse of court processes;
- Lengthy evidence and arguments and non-utilisation of CPC provisions, namely Order X;
- Not awarding realistic cost for frivolous and vexatious litigation;
- Lack of adequate training and appropriate orientation course to judicial officers and lawyers;
- Lack of prioritization of cases;
-
Lack of accountability and transparency.
The Court also pinpointed at the other reasons including ‘over-tolerant nature of the Courts below’ granting adjournment at the drop of the hat bringing entire judicial process to a grinding halt. The Court expressed that “It is crucial to understand that the wheels of justice must not merely turn, they must turn without friction, without bringing it to a grinding halt due to unwarranted delay.” The Court suggested all the system’s stakeholders to be alive to this alarming situation to be dealt with iron hands and be curbed by nipping them at the bud to avoid eroding of confidence of public in the system. The Court seriously remarked that “Be it the litigant public or Member of the Bar or anyone connected in the process of dispensation of justice, should not be allowed to dilute the judicial processes by delaying the said process by in any manner whatsoever.”
Supreme Court on “how to avoid pendency of cases?”
The Court cited T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467 to reiterate that the answer to an irresponsible suit or litigation would be a vigilant judge and comment that “, an onerous responsibility rests on the shoulders of the presiding officer of every court, who should be cautious and vigilant against such indolent acts and persons who attempt to thwart quick dispensation of justice. A response is expected from all parties involved, with a special emphasis on the presiding officer. The presiding officer must exercise due diligence to ensure that proceedings are conducted efficiently and without unnecessary delays.” The Court also suggested members of the Bar to be circumspect in seeking adjournments, particularly regarding old matters or those pending for decades.
With reference to Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480; Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (II) v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 and others, the Court clarified that the time limit prescribed under CPC was heled to be directory and not mandatory, which does not mean that adjournments sought should be granted for mere asking but should be demonstrated for being honest and with bona-fide intention. The Court went on with perusal of Order XVII of CPC as dealt with in detail in M. Mahalingam (Dr.) v. Shashikala, 2008 SCC OnLine Kar 89. The Court cited ‘Case Flow Management Rules for High Courts and Subordinate Courts’ mirroring the suggestions in ‘National Mission for Delivery of Justice and Legal Reform’, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar Committee on Case Management System to indicate that some states were yet to frame those rules. The Court requested the Chief Justices of High Courts yet to attain success on this task to take immediate steps for formulating such Rules and all of them to endeavor at effective implementation. The Court also noted the pendency of cases across the states and Union Territories through Statistics of the National Judicial Data Grid as on 16-10-2023, majority of them stuck at the Evidence/ Argument/ Judgement stage (43,22,478), and at Appearance/Service stage (27,03,493).
Taking responsibility for the situation, the Court expressed that “In the hallowed halls of justice, where the rights and liberties of every citizen are protected, we find ourselves at a critical juncture. Our Judiciary, the cornerstone of our democratic system, stands as the beacon of hope for those who seek remedy. Yet, it is a solemn truth that we must confront with unwavering resolve—the spectre of delay and pendency has cast a long shadow upon the very dispensation of justice.”
Conclusion and Supreme Court Directions to reduce pendency of cases in Indian Courts
The Court allowed the instant appeal setting aside the impugned order passed by Uttarakhand High Court and affirming the Trial Court’s order dated 13-12-2012. In addition, the Court issued following directions towards curbing judicial delay:
- All courts at district and taluka levels to ensure proper and time bound execution of the summons as per Order V Rule (2) of CPC; Principal District Judges to monitor the same, collate the statistics and forward them to committee constituted by High Court for consideration and monitoring.
- All courts at district and taluka levels to ensure filing of written statement within the time prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1, preferably within 30 days, assign reasons in case of extending the limit beyond 30 days as per Order VIII sub-Rule (1) of CPC.
- All courts at district and taluka levels to ensure that after completion of pleadings, parties are called upon to appear on the day fixed as per Order X, and record admissions/denials; to direct parties to either opt for mode of settlement outside the Court as per Section 89(1) and fix date for appearance before appropriate forum/authority and make it clear in the reference order the date fixed in case of failure of ADR.
- In case of parties not opting for ADR as per Section 89(1), the Court to frame issues for its determination within 1 week, preferably in open court.
- Fix date of trial in consultation with advocates appearing for the parties, enabling them to adjust their calendar, and proceed with trial on a day-to-day basis to the possible extent.
- Trial Judges of district and taluka courts to maintain diary to ensure that only such number of cases are handled on a given day for trial and complete recording of evidence to avoid overcrowding of cases which as a sequence would result in adjournment sought and preventing inconvenience to stakeholders.
- Counsels representing parties to be enlightened of provisions under Order XI and XII to narrow down the scope of dispute, also the onerous responsibility of the Bar Associations and Bar Councils to have periodical refresher courses, preferably in virtual mode.
- Trial Courts to comply with Order XVII Rule 1 scrupulously, meticulously and without fail, and once commenced, trial to be proceeded with on a day-to-day basis as per Rule 2.
- Courts to give meaningful effect to effect to provisions for payment of cost to ensure no adjournment is sought for procrastination of litigation, and opposite party gets suitably compensated in case of adjournment so granted.
- On conclusion of trial, oral arguments to be heard immediately and continuously, and judgment to be pronounced within the period stipulated under Order XX of CPC.
-
Every presiding officer to forward statistics related to cases pending before each Court beyond 5 years to the Principal District Judge once in a month, who has to collate the data and forward it to review committee constituted by High Courts, enabling it to take further steps.
The committee constituted by the Chief Justice of respective states to meet at least once in 2 months and direct suitable corrective measures to be taken by the Court concerned, and also monitor old cases constantly.
[Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1377, decided on 20-10-2023]
Judgment authored by: Justice Aravind Kumar
Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice Aravind Kumar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellant: Advocate on Record Mona K. Rajvanshi
For Respondent: Advocate Sushil Kumar Dubey, Advocate on Record Rameshwar Prasad Goyal
