{"id":1071,"date":"2023-11-04T15:00:23","date_gmt":"2023-11-04T09:30:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=1071"},"modified":"2023-11-04T15:00:23","modified_gmt":"2023-11-04T09:30:23","slug":"supreme-court-issues-directions-to-trial-courts-for-speedy-justice-in-civil-cases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/supreme-court-issues-directions-to-trial-courts-for-speedy-justice-in-civil-cases\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme court issues directions to trial courts for speedy justice in civil cases"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2>Yashpal Jain [APPELLANT(S)] Vs. Sushila Devi &amp; Others [RESPONDENT(S)]<\/h2>\n<p><strong>CIVIL APPEAL NO.4296 OF 2023<\/strong><br \/>\n<strong>(2JB, S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar JJ., delivered by Aravind Kumar, J.)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Facts:<\/u><\/strong> 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 \u2018Urmila Devi\u2019 for the sake of brevity). This is a classic 2 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\u2019s 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 \u2018first defendant\u2019 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.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Issue:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Whether the impugned order dated 28.11.2019 passed in Writ Petition (M\/S) No.144 of 2013 quashing the orders dated 13.12.2012 rendered in Civil Revision No.4 of 2012 by the High Court whereby the order dated 09.05.2012 passed by trial court allowing the impleadment application filed by the appellant herein had been rejected, is to be sustained or set aside?<\/li>\n<li>Whether any further direction or directions requires to be issued for concluding the proceedings in a time bound manner on account of Suit No.2 of 1985 pending for trial for past 41 years?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong><u>Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:<\/u><\/strong> Ms. Rachna Srivastava<\/p>\n<p>It is the contention of Ms. Rachna Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, that the High Court committed a serious error in upsetting the findings of the Trial Court and the Revisional Court whereunder the discretionary power was exercised by condoning the delay while setting aside the abatement and 8 allowing the application of the appellant herein to be brought on record as legal representative of deceased Urmila Devi; the High Court erred in not considering the fact that courts below had recorded a clear finding that appellant herein was the sole surviving legal representative of the deceased plaintiff and as such it ought not to have interfered with the well-reasoned order passed by the Trial Court as affirmed by the Revisional Court; She would also contend that defendants in this suit who were the writ petitioners in WP(M\/S) 342 of 2005 (old number 14655 of 1983) had substituted the appellant herein as legal representative of Urmila Devi in dispute related to the suit schedule property (involved in OS No.2 of 1982) and as such defendants cannot be permitted to take stand contrary to same. Hence, it is contended that impugned order is liable to be set aside.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:<\/u><\/strong> Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal<\/p>\n<p>Shri Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, supports the impugned order and contends that in the Writ Petition No.144 of 2013, appellant herein who was a party therein had not filed a counter-affidavit and as such High Court had recorded that non-traversing of petition averments would amount to admission and had also taken note of the fact that 9 appellant herein had filed an affidavit before the Trial Court on 25.10.2008 whereunder he has accepted the Will dated 19.05.1999 executed by deceased Urmila Devi and thereby supported the stand of Manoj Kumar Jain being the legal heir of Urmila Devi. He would also draw the attention of this Court to yet another affidavit dated 21.08.2009 filed by the appellant himself in OS No.2 of 1982 whereunder he has again supported the Will dated 19.05.1999 or in other words, supported the substitution of Shri Manoj Kumar Jain as legal representative of deceased Urmila Devi. Hence, he contends there is no illegality committed by the High Court. It is further contended that appellant was having knowledge of OS No.2 of 1982 and as such he cannot plead ignorance for the delay. Lastly, challenging the adoption on the ground that same cannot be the basis for the appellant herein to be brought on record, he has sought for rejection of this appeal.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court allowed the present appeal and held that, <em>\u201cAs far as the question of right of the appellant over the suit schedule properties, we are of the view, by virtue of adoption propounded, it is an issue which would be at large before the learned trial court and the veracity of the Will dated 19.05.1999 alleged to have been executed by Urmila Devi in favour of Manoj Kumar Jain, is to be decided in appropriate proceedings and as such we desist from expressing any opinion in that regard and contentions of both parties are kept open.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The court issued the following directions to the trial courts to ensure \u2018speedy justice\u2019 is delivered:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>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 49 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.<\/li>\n<li>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.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<ul>\n<li>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 specified in sub-Section (1) of Section 89 and at the option of the parties shall fix the date of appearance before such forum or authority and in the event of the parties opting to any one of the modes of settlement directions be issued to appear on the date, time and venue fixed and the parties shall so appear before such authority\/forum without any further notice at such designated place and time and it shall also be made clear in the reference order that trial is fixed beyond the period of two months making it clear that in the event of ADR not being fruitful, the trial would commence on the next day so fixed and would proceed on day-to-day basis.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ol>\n<li>In the event of the party\u2019s failure to opt for ADR namely resolution of dispute as prescribed under Section 89(1) the court should frame the issues for its determination within one week preferably, in the open court.<\/li>\n<li>Fixing of the date of trial shall be in consultation with the learned advocates appearing for the parties to enable them to adjust their calendar. Once the date of trial is fixed, the trial should proceed accordingly to the extent possible, on day-to-day basis.<\/li>\n<li>Learned trial judges of District and Taluka Courts shall as far as possible maintain the diary for ensuring that only such number of cases as can be handled on any given day for trial and complete the recording of evidence so as to avoid overcrowding of the cases and as a sequence of it would 50 result in adjournment being sought and thereby preventing any inconvenience being caused to the stakeholders.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<ul>\n<li>The counsels representing the parties may be enlightened of the provisions of Order XI and Order XII so as to narrow down the scope of dispute and it would be also the onerous responsibility of the Bar Associations and Bar Councils to have periodical refresher courses and preferably by virtual mode.<\/li>\n<li>The trial courts shall scrupulously, meticulously and without fail comply with the provisions of Rule 1 of Order XVII and once the trial has commenced it shall be proceeded from day to day as contemplated under the proviso to Rule (2).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ol>\n<li>The courts shall give meaningful effect to the provisions for payment of cost for ensuring that no adjournment is sought for procrastination of the litigation and the opposite party is suitably compensated in the event of such adjournment is being granted.<\/li>\n<li>At conclusion of trial the oral arguments shall be heard immediately and continuously and judgment be pronounced within the period stipulated under Order XX of CPC.<\/li>\n<li>The statistics relating to the cases pending in each court beyond 5 years shall be forwarded by every presiding officer to the Principal District Judge once in a month who (Principal District Judge\/District Judge) shall collate the same and forward it to the review committee constituted by the respective High Courts for enabling it to take further steps.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<ul>\n<li>The Committee so constituted by the Hon\u2019ble Chief Justice of the respective States shall meet at least once in two months and direct such corrective measures to be taken by concerned court as deemed fit and shall also monitor the old cases (preferably which are pending for more than 05 years) constantly.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Yashpal Jain [APPELLANT(S)] Vs. Sushila Devi &amp; Others [RESPONDENT(S)] CIVIL APPEAL NO.4296 OF 2023 (2JB, S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar JJ., delivered by Aravind Kumar, J.) &nbsp; Facts: 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 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1074,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1071","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1071","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1071"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1071\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1076,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1071\/revisions\/1076"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1074"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1071"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1071"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1071"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}