High Courts

N. Subba Raju vs H.S. Nagaraj and Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 31 May 1989 · Citation: (1989) 2 KarLJ 116

HON’BLE JUDGES
H. G. Balakrishna, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 24
CASE NUMBER
CP. No. 266/1988
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 422 words

Balakrishna, J.-This Civil Petition has been filed seeking the transfer of a suit in O.S.No. 35/81, which is pending on the file of the District Judge, Hassan to any of the Court of District Judges in Bangalore with a direction to dispose of the said suit within a specified period, in accordance with law.

2.

It would not be uncharitable to observe that the inertia exhibited by the presiding officer in the disposal of the suit even after an abnormally long time after hearing of arguments and setting down the case for judgment is shocking to say the least. After arguments were heard on the original side, on closure of evidence by both the parlies the case was posted to 14-11-1984 for pronouncing the judgment. Thereafter a number of dates were given for the same purpose and the adjournments were not productive and therefore, the defendant being driven to desperation has, filed this Civil Petition for withdrawal of the suit from the Court of the District Judge, Hassan and for transferring the same to any of the District Judges Court in Bangalore for disposal within a specified period. The exasperation of the petitioner is well founded, because he has suffered an order of injunction and that is affecting his legitimate interest, according to the petitioner, particularly in view of the delay in disposal of the suit. The order-sheet has been produced and it contains numerous dates of adjournments filling several pages.

3.

The facts are self explanatory. The conduct of the presiding officer in not delivering the judgment within a reasonable time is certainly undermining the faith of litigants who enter the Court of justice and the petitioner is no exception. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the relief is not granted, the petitioner would lose faith in the Institution which is to deliver justice to the litigants.

4.

In the circumstances, I consider it necessary to grant the relief to the petitioner, though not in the manner sought by the petitioner, by issuing a direction to the new presiding officer who appears to have succeeded the one who has exhibited administrative anaemia.

5.

For the foregoing reasons, I pass the following:

ORDER

The District Judge, Hassan is directed to hear the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter deliver the judgment within 90 days thereafter.

A copy of this order shall be communicated to the District Judge, Hassan forthwith.