Pooran Chand Gupta vs District Judge/A.D.J. Ct. No. 8 and Others

Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to delete the District Judge/Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Azamgarh from the array of the parties, during the course of day. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution for a direction upon the Additional District Judge, Azamgarh to decide the appeal no. 245 of 2011 and for restraining the opposite party not to alienate the property in dispute.

In view of the proposed order, there is no need to issue notice to the respondents. The petition is being disposed of in terms of the Rules of the Court.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and possession before the trial court. The said case was registered as Original Suit No. 191 of 2006 and was decreed on 17.5.2011. The copy of the said order has been placed by the petitioner on record as annexure -1 to the writ petition.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 17.5.2011, the defendants/respondents herein preferred an appeal no. 245 of 2011 before the learned District Judge which is still pending.

It is stated that inspite of the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 17.5.2011, a proceeding under revenue court was initiated for mutation of the name in favour of the defendants/respondents herein. In the said proceeding some order has been passed in favour of the respondents and a contempt petition is engaging attention of the court in Contempt Petition No. 1177 of 2013.

In the meantime, the plaintiff/petitioner herein moved an application in the pending appeal before learned District Judge that the defendants therein might be restrained from changing the nature of the property in dispute.

It is stated that on account of strike of lawyers, the functioning of the court is hampered there. For the said reasons, the District Judge is unable to decide the application of the petitioner herein.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of Manoj Kumar and Others Vs. Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Others, of the judgment which is relevant for the issue involved in the present case reads as under;

Before parting with this case, we would like to mention that it is deeply regrettable and highly objectionable that there are strikes in District Courts in U.P. on flimsy and frivolous pretexts, and some District Courts function only for about 60 or 70 days in a year. This is a shocking state of affairs, and will no longer be tolerated by this Court. The judiciary and bar are both accountable to the public and they must behave in a responsible manner so that cases are decided quickly and thus the faith of the public in judiciary is maintained. Surely, the public has a right to expect this from us. We therefore, issue a general mandamus to all the judicial officers in all District Courts in U.P. that if the lawyers go on strike the judicial officers must, despite the strike of lawyers, sit in court and pass orders in cases before them even in the absence of the counsels. If the lawyers disturb the functioning of the Court, the District Judge shall contact the police and the police will give all protection to the judges and the cases will not be adjourned merely because of the lawyers'' strike. People in this State are fed up with lawyers'' strikes and this state of affairs must now end. The lawyers must realize that litigants, witnesses, etc, often come from distant places at heavy expense and it is most improper that they have to go away because of strikes by lawyers. The judiciary exists fro the people and not for lawyers or judges.

He again placed reliance on a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court on 30.3.2000 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15342 of 2000. The court in paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the judgment has observed as under;

It has come to our notice that in about half of the District Courts in the State of U.P., the lawyers are on strike for about a month and they are not permitting any judicial authority to work. This is deeply regrettable and highly objectionable. The judiciary exists for serving the people and not for the lawyers and judges, in our view, the attitude of the lawyers of the District Court and the Commissionery of U.P. who are on strike for the last about one month is most irresponsible. This act of the lawyers will no longer be tolerated by this Court and nobody will be allowed to hold the judiciary to ransom. A Division Bench of this Court in Manoj Kumar and Others Vs. Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Others, , has held that if lawyers to on strike, even then Courts must sit and pass judicial orders even in absence of the lawyers, and if the functioning of the Courts is disturbed by anybody, police help must be taken by the District Judge or other presiding officer. The people of the State are fed up with lawyers'' strikes and they are suffering greatly. The lawyers must understand that litigants, witnesses, etc. come to Court from far off places often at heavy expense but they find that the Courts are closed just because the lawyers are on strike. This is most unfair to the litigants or their witnesses

We, therefore, direct the Judges of all District Courts, Commissioner and other presiding officers of the Courts or authorities where judicial or quasi-judicial work is being done that from tomorrow, they must start sitting in Court and start hearing of the cases and pass orders even in the absence of the lawyers who are on strike. If anybody disturbs the working of the Courts the District Judge, Collector, Commissioner or the presiding officer of the Court concerned or authority shall call the police and prevent them from doing so. The lawyers must know that enough is enough.

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, learned District Judge is requested to consider and decide the application of the petitioner dated 11.3.2013 pending before him as expeditiously as possible keeping in view of the law laid down in the above noted case.

The learned Civil Judge concerned would have the regard of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi and Others Vs. Nirmala Devi and Others, wherein the Court has laid down the law in respect of the proceedings in the trial court and certain guidelines have been laid down in the aforesaid judgment. The guidelines reads as under:-

The main question which arises for our consideration is whether the prevailing delay in civil litigation can be curbed ? In our considered opinion the existing system can be drastically changed or improved if the following steps are taken by the trial courts while dealing with the civil trials:

A. Pleadings are the foundation of the claims of parties. Civil litigation is largely based on documents. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the trial Judge to carefully scrutinize, check and verify the pleadings and the documents filed by the parties. This must be done immediately after civil suits are filed.

B. The court should resort to discovery and production of documents and interrogatories at the earliest according to the object of the Act. If this exercise is carefully carried out, it would focus the controversies involved in the case and help the court in arriving at the truth of the matter and doing substantial justice.

C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings.

D. The court must adopt realistic and pragmatic approach in granting mesne profits. The court must carefully keep in view the ground realities while granting mesne profits.

E. The courts should be extremely careful and cautious in granting ex parte ad interim injunctions or stay orders. Ordinarily short notice should be issued to the defendants or respondents and only after hearing the parties concerned appropriate orders should be passed.

F. Litigants who obtained ex parte ad interim injunction on the strength of false pleadings and forged documents should be adequately punished. No one should be allowed to abuse the process of the court.

G. The principle of restitution be fully applied in a pragmatic manner in order to do real and substantial justice.

H. Every case emanates from a human or a commercial problem and the court must make serious endeavour to resolve the problem within the framework of law and in accordance with the well-settled principles of law and justice.

I. If in a given case, ex parte injunction is granted, then the said application for grant of injunction should be disposed of on merits, after hearing both sides as expeditiously as may be possible on a priority basis and undue adjournments should be avoided.

J. At the time of filing of the plaint, the trial court should prepare a complete schedule and fix dates for all the stages of the suit, right from filing of the written statement till pronouncement of the judgment and the courts should strictly adhere to the said dates and the said timetable as far as possible. If any interlocutory application is filed then the same be disposed of in between the said dates of hearings fixed in the said suit itself so that the date fixed for the main suit may not be disturbed.

Same view has been taken Shiv Cotex Vs. Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. and Others, :

No litigant has a right to abuse the procedure provided in CPC. Adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system. It is true that cap on adjournments to a party during the hearing of the suit provided in the proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 CPC is not mandatory and in a suitable case, on justifiable cause, the court may grant more than three adjournments to a party for its evidence but ordinarily the cap provided in the proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 CPC should be maintained. When we say "justifiable cause" what we mean to say is, a cause which is not only "sufficient cause" as contemplated in sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 17 CPC but a cause which makes the request for adjournment by a party during the hearing of the suit beyond three adjournments unavoidable and sort of a compelling necessity like sudden illness of the litigant or the witness or the lawyer; death in the family of any one of them; natural calamity like floods, earthquake, etc. in the area where any of these persons reside; an accident involving the litigant or the witness or the lawyer on way to the court and such like cause. The list is only illustrative and not exhaustive.

With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.