Indus Tower Ltd & Ors. vs Harish Yadav & Ors

Prathiba M. Singh, J

This hearing has been done by video conferencing.

The Petitioners’ grievance in the present petition is that an ex-parte order was passed by the trial court on 17th August, 2020 restraining the

construction/erection/installation of a cellular tower over property bearing no. RZ-1, Khasra No.264 and 268, Village Nasir Pur, Ashok Park, West

Sagar Pur, New Delhi. The Petitioners moved an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC before the ld. ASCJ, Patiala House Courts, however,

both the injunction application and the application seeking vacation have not been heard for several months. On one occasion the trial court had heard

the matter but did not pass orders and the Petitioner no.1 company is incurring huge expenses, making payments to the Corporation and other

authorities and still unable to make the tower operational.

Ld. counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 5, who are the original Plaintiffs in the suit, appear in the matter and submit that they have not delayed the

matter. Ld. counsel for the SDMC is also present.

A perusal of the order sheet of the trial court shows that the matter has been repeatedly adjourned since August, 2020, after the ex parte order was

granted. Hearing has, in fact, taken place on 16th September, 2020, and a Status Report has also been filed on behalf of the SDMC. Hearing was

again conducted on 12th November, 2020 and the matter was listed for clarification/order on 20th November, 2020. Thereafter, the Judicial Officer

changed and the matter has been adjourned for arguments on various dates.

Considering the fact that the Petitioner is expressing an urgency in the matter and that the applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and

Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC have been pending since August, 2020, it is directed that the said applications be taken up on 5th February, 2021. After

hearing the parties, orders on both the applications shall be passed by the Trial Court within a period of 30 days.

This Court has repeatedly emphasised that once arguments are heard by a Court, listing the matter for clarification/order is not permissible, which is

what the judicial officer presiding initially has done in the present case. It needs no further emphasis that once arguments are heard by the Trial Court,

within a reasonable period, as held, orders would have to be pronounced. This has been repeatedly settled by the Supreme Court in Balaji Baliram

Mupade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 3564/2020, decided on 29th October, 2020] as also

by this Court in Deepti Khera v.   Siddharth Khera [CM (M) 1637/2019, decided on t1h 8November, 2019]. The

observations in Deepti Khera (supra) are set out below:

“6. It is the settled position in law, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318

that once matters are reserved for orders, usually, the same should be pronounced within a time schedule. In Anil Rai (supra) it has been

observed as under:

“8. The intention of the legislature regarding pronouncement of judgments can be inferred from the provisions of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. Sub-section (1) of Section 353 of the Code provides that the judgment in every trial in any criminal court of original

jurisdiction, shall be pronounced in open court immediately after the conclusion of the trial or on some subsequent time for which due

notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders. The words “some subsequent time†mentioned in Section 353 contemplate the

passing of the judgment without undue delay, as delay in the pronouncement of judgment is opposed to the principle of law. Such

subsequent time can at the most be stretched to a period of six weeks and not beyond that time in any case. The pronouncement of

judgments in the civil case should not be permitted to go beyond two months.â€​

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Rai (supra) has also passed certain guidelines regarding pronouncement of judgments. The same

are reproduced below:

(i) The Chief Justices of the High Courts may issue appropriate directions to the Registry that in a case where the judgment is reserved

and is pronounced later, a column be added in the judgment where, on the first page, after the cause-title, date of reserving the judgment

and date of pronouncing it be separately mentioned by the Court Officer concerned.

(ii) That Chief Justices of the High Courts, on their administrative side, should direct the Court Officers/Readers of the various Benches in

the High Courts to furnish every month the list of cases in the matters where the judgments reserved are not pronounced within the period of

that month.

(iii) On noticing that after conclusion of the arguments the judgment is not pronounced within a period of two months, the Chief Justice

concerned shall draw the attention of the Bench concerned to the pending matter. The Chief Justice may also see the desirability of

circulating the statement of such cases in which the judgments have not been pronounced within a period of six weeks from the date of

conclusion of the arguments amongst the Judges of the High Court for their information. Such communication be conveyed as confidential

and in a sealed cover.

(iv) Where a judgment is not pronounced within three months from the date of reserving it, any of the parties in the case is permitted to file

an application in the High Court with a prayer for early judgment. Such application, as and when filed, shall be listed before the Bench

concerned within two days excluding the intervening holidays.

(v) If the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within a period of six months, any of the parties of the said lis shall be entitled to

move an application before the Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to withdraw the said case and to make it over to any other

Bench for fresh arguments. It is open to the Chief Justice to grant the said prayer or to pass any other order as he deems fit in the

circumstances.

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908, prescribes thirty days as the time in which a judgment should be pronounced. Order XX Rule 1 of the

CPC reads as under:

“1. Judgment when pronounced. â€" [(1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in an open Court, either

at once, or as soon thereafter as may be practicable and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a

day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:

Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within

thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do on the ground of the

exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of the case, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such

day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond sixty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, and due notice of the

day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.]â€​

While this Court is conscious of the fact that there are pressures on the Trial Courts, non-pronouncement of orders for more than a year

cannot be held to be justified. It has been observed in several matters that trial courts keep matters `FOR ORDERS’ for months together

and sometimes orders are not pronounced for even 2-3 years. Thereafter the judicial officer is transferred or posted in some other

jurisdiction and the matter has to be reargued. Such a practice puts enormous burden on the system and on litigants/lawyers. The usual

practice ought to be to pronounce orders within the time schedule laid down in the CPC as also the various judgements of the Supreme

Court. In civil cases maximum period of two months can be taken for pronouncing orders, unless there are exceptional cases or there are

very complex issues that are involved.

Accordingly, in respect of pronouncement of orders, the following directions are issued:

i. When arguments are heard, the order sheet ought to reflect that the matter is part-heard;

ii. Upon conclusion of arguments, the order sheet ought to clearly reflect that the arguments have been heard and the matter is reserved for

orders. If the court is comfortable in giving a specific date for pronouncing orders, specific date ought to be given;

iii. Orders ought to be pronounced in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anil Rai (supra);

iv. The order ought to specify the date when orders were reserved and the date of pronouncement of the order.â€​

The above legal position has been repeatedly communicated to judicial officers, however the practice of listing matters for

clarification/order does not seem to abate. After conclusion of hearing, listing the matter for clarification/order is not

permissible, in a routine manner.

Parties to appear before the Trial Court on 5th February, 2021. No unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to either party.

With these observations the present petition, along with all pending applications, is disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the ld. District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts as also the concerned court of the Additional Senior

Civil Judge, Patiala House Courts. In addition, a copy of this order shall be specifically communicated by the worthy Registrar General to Dr. Pankaj

Sharma, Additional Senior Civil Judge, Patiala House Court, Delhi.