Rajasthan High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioners seeking expeditious disposal of a case which was pending for more than forty-three years, Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., directed Court of Sub-Divisional Officer (‘SDO’), Reni, District Alwar to decide the pending suit expeditiously as early as possible and not beyond the period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the present order. The proceedings of the suit would be expedited on day-to-day basis, without entertaining the unnecessary request of either side to defer the proceedings or hearing to a future date. Further, the Court directed all subordinate Revenue Courts to take up all the oldest cases pending for last more than five to ten years, under the category of ‘oldest cases’ and decide the same expeditiously. All the Revenue Officers were also directed to instruct the staff concerned to keep the old files in red file covers for easy identification and to write the order-sheets of the oldest files in their own handwriting and not by the staff or court master.
Background
On 06-07-1981, the petitioners submitted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents before the Court of SDO, Rajgarh, District Alwar. Further, an application was submitted by the petitioners for appointment of ‘receiver’ and the same was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 02-12-1981 and the Tehsildar, was appointed as ‘receiver’.
Thereafter, the respondents submitted an appeal before the Court of Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar, and the order of appointment of receiver was quashed vide order dated 05-11-1985. Subsequently, the order dated 05-11-1985 was further upheld by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer vide order dated 23-10-1986.
The petitioners filed a writ petition before the present Court and challenged all the above-mentioned orders. The Court, with the consent of the parties, vide order dated 13-09-2002 issued a direction to the SDO to decide a suit within a period of five months. Thereafter, on 27-05-2003, the petitioners closed their evidence, and the case was posted for recording evidence of the respondents since, twenty years, the stage of suit was for recording the respondents’ evidence. Meanwhile, the suit was transferred to the Court of SDO, Reni, District Alwar on 13-08-2019 and the same was still sub-judice for want of recording the respondents’ evidence.
Thus, the petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking direction against the SDO, Reni, District Alwar to decide the suit expeditiously, within a stipulated time period of six months.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the pendency of the instant suit since last more than forty-three years and repeated adjournments amounted to miscarriage of justice and also, was against the concept of speedy disposal of cases. The present case was a glaring case where the petitioners took two decades to complete their evidence and closed their evidence on 27-05-2003. However, the respondents were regularly seeking time to produce their evidence since last more than twenty years.
The Court opined that both the petitioners and the respondents were responsible for the delay caused in disposal of the suit and no litigant had the right to abuse the procedure provided in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Concept of seeking countless adjournments had grown up like a cancer corroding the entire body of the judicial system. The Court further opined that parties to the suit were not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure and had no right to determine when the matter should be heard, rather they were expected to cooperate with the court proceedings in ensuring the effective and speedy disposal of the matter.
The Court relied on Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd. (2011) 9 SCC 678; Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand, (2013) 5 SCC 202; Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC 612, and opined that the sole reason of huge pendency of cases in the courts was that the court’s time was wasted in unnecessary adjournments. A civil case, which should normally be over within a reasonable time, was dragged to a number of years, sometimes for decades and the court’s time was wasted when no fruitful was done on the dates fixed for particular purpose, that is recording of evidence or arguments, etc. The Court opined that, “these adjournments are sought because one of the parties is always interested in seeking adjournments and prolonging the case, as prolonging the case would itself result in substantial benefit to such party and it would frustrate the affords of the other party in getting the dispute adjudicated in time and in such circumstances, the famous saying proves that “Justice delayed, is justice denied”.
The Court opined that the time had come to get out the adjournment culture so that the confidence and trust of the litigants in the justice delivery system was not shaken and the rule of law was maintained. The Court opined that the speedy trial was a fundamental right of persons guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, but in the present case, the very concept of right of speedy trial had been grossly violated.
Thus, the Court directed SDO, Reni, District Alwar to decide the pending suit expeditiously as early as possible and not beyond the period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the present order. The proceedings of the suit would be expedited on day-to-day basis, without entertaining the unnecessary request of either side to defer the proceedings or hearing to a future date.
Further, the Court issued general mandamus to all the subordinate Revenue Courts to strictly adhere to the directions contained in Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1377 and comply with the same in its letter and spirit to expedite the trial of revenue suits pending before all the subordinate Revenue Courts. The Chief Secretary of the State was also directed to circulate the copy of the present order to the District Collectors and the Revenue Officers i.e. Collectors, Sub-Divisional Magistrates, etc., of all the Districts of the State to follow the directions contained in Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1377 and submit the compliance report to the present Court within six months.
The Court opined that it was the high and right time to issue additional directions to all the Revenue Courts and the Appellate Authorities to speed up the process of adjudicating the oldest cases on priority, without entertaining the unnecessary and unreasonable requests of adjournments of the old matters. Thus, the Court directed all subordinate Revenue Courts to take up all the oldest cases pending for last more than five to ten years, under the category of ‘oldest cases’ and decide the same expeditiously. Further, all the Revenue Officers were also directed to instruct the concerned staff to keep the old files in red file covers for easy identification and to write the order-sheets of the oldest files in their own handwriting and not by the staff or court master.
Further, the Court directed the Chief Secretary of State of Rajasthan to constitute an Arrears Review Committee at the level of Divisional Headquarters of the State headed by senior IAS officers who should convene a meeting at least four times in a year, after a gap of three months and direct coercive methods to be undertaken by the Revenue and also, should monitor the old cases constantly. The Court stated that the statistics related to the oldest cases pending in the Revenue Court should be forwarded by every Presiding Officer to the District Collector concerned, once in a month, who should then forward it to the Arrears Committee constituted by the State.
[Vishambar Dayal v. Jagannath, 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 4207, Order dated 11-12-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Ajay Gupta and Sampati Sharma, Advocates;
Buy Constitution of India HERE
