Ramanuj Rai vs C.J. (J.D.) Mohammadabad, Ghazipur

Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.—The petitioner had instituted Civil Suit No. 257 of 1990 in the Court of Munsif, Mohammadabad, Ghazipur. He has preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mohammadabad, Ghazipur to decide substitution application no. 220-Ka filed by the second respondent and substitution application no. 222-Ka by the petitioner.

The grievance of the petitioner is that on 22nd September, 2004 the Additional District Judge has issued a direction upon the Civil Judge to decide the matter expeditiously and fix a short date of fifteen days, with certain other directions. However, the matter is still pending and the substitution application, mentioned above, is yet to be decided.

It is trite that the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, ordinarily, should not issue direction in a mechanical manner to expedite the suit, revision etc. This issue has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ali Shad Usmani and others v. Ali Isteba and others, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB) which has observed as under:

"2. We are not inclined to issue a direction for the expeditious hearing of a Civil Suit which is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), District-Azamgarh. It would be most inappropriate to Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution simply for the purpose of expediting the hearing of a suit. Such orders, if granted, place a class of litigants, who move the Court in a separate and preferential category whereas other cases which may be of similar or greater antiquity and urgency are left to be decided in the normal channel. Hence, any such direction may be issued with the greatest care and circumspection by the High Court otherwise the Civil Courts will be overburdened only with requests for expeditious disposal of suits, which have been expedited by the High Court. Most of the litigants cannot afford the expense of moving the High Court and would not, therefore, be in a position to have the benefit of such an order.

Ultimately, it must be left to the judicious exercise of discretion of the concerned Court to determine whether a ground for urgency has been made out. We emphasize that there may be other cases such as involving senior citizens, those who are differently abled or people suffering from a particular disabililty socio-economic or otherwise which may prime cause of urgent disposal. It is for the learned Trial Judge in each case to apply his or her mind and decide whether the hearing of the suit to be expedited."

However, in the present case the suit is pending since 1990 and there is an order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 22.9.2004 directing the learned Civil Judge to decide the matter expeditiously by fixing short dates. In spite of the said order, more than ten years have passed, as it appears, but the said order has not been complied with.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to delete the respondent no. 1 from the array of parties. In view of the order proposed to be passed there is no need to issue notice to respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4. With the consent of learned Standing Counsel, the writ petition is being disposed of with the following directions:

(i) Learned Civil Judge shall comply the directions of the learned Additional District Judge and decide the matter expeditiously; and,

(ii) While granting adjournment to the parties, the learned Civil Judge shall pay the attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast Pvt. Ltd and others, (2011) 9 SCC 678. Relevant part of the judgment is extracted herein below:

"16. 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 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 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.

However, the absence of the lawyer or his non-availability because of professional work in other court or elsewhere or on the ground of strike call or the change of a lawyer or the continuous illness of the lawyer (the party whom he represents must then make alternative arrangement well in advance) or similar grounds will not justify more than three adjournments to a party during the hearing of the suit. The past conduct of a party in the conduct of the proceedings is an important circumstance which the courts must keep in view whenever a request for adjournment is made. A party to the suit is not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure and pleasure and has no right to determine when the evidence would be let in by it or the matter should be heard. The parties to a suit--whether plaintiff or defendant - must cooperate with the court in ensuring the effective work on the date of hearing for which the matter has been fixed. If they don''t, they do so at their own peril."

For the reasons mentioned herein above, the writ petition is disposed of.