Allahabad High Court
Ram Siya vs Chhote Lal @ Arun Prakash on 24 February, 2020
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 3 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1070 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ram Siya Respondent :- Chhote Lal @ Arun Prakash Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Singh Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken in the record.
Shri Dharmendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suit instituted by the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed by judgment and decree rendered by the learned trial court on 04.12.1998. The petitioner / plaintiff being aggrieved, took the judgment and decree of the learned trial court in appeal, which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1998 (Ram Siya Vs. Musammat Saraswati Devi). The appeal was allowed by the judgment and decree rendered by the learned appellate court on 30.11.2002. The second appeal preferred against the judgment of the first appellate court was dismissed by this Court by means of a judgment and decree dated 30.07.2018. The matter has attained finality. The petitioner promptly put the judgment and decree of the Court in execution by instituting an Execution Case No. 05 of 2018 (Ram Siya Vs. Chhote Lal @ Arun Prakash and others).
The only prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to expedite the proceedings of Execution Case No. 05 of 2018 (Ram Siya Vs. Chhote Lal @ Arun Prakash and others), pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etawah, and that the execution case be decided within a stipulated period of time.
Shri Dharmendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the adjudication was concluded after prolonged litigation and the execution case was instituted in the year 2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is being denied his hard won fruits of the decree long years after the decree was passed in his favour.
I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The suit was instituted in the year 1998. The petitioner instituted the execution proceedings in the year 2018. The petitioner has not been able to enjoy the fruits of the decree long after his rights were adjudicated by the courts.
A perusal of the order-sheet shows that the execution proceedings are being adjourned and a final decision is being inordinately delayed for no good reason or justifiable cause.
The higher courts have set their face against inordinate delay in the trial courts. The higher courts are cognizant of various causes of delay including adjournments being granted for the asking. In M/s Shiv Cotex Versus Tirgum Auto Plast P. Ltd. and others, reported at 2011 (89) ALR 232, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while emphasizing the imperative of expeditious disposal of suits to preserve the faith in the judicial system held thus:
".........It is sad, but true, that the litigants seek - and the courts grant - adjournments at the drop of the hat. In the cases where the judges are little pro-active and refuse to accede to the requests of unnecessary adjournments, the litigants deploy all sorts of methods in protracting the litigation. It is not surprising that civil disputes drag on and on. The misplaced sympathy and indulgence by the appellate and revisional courts compound the malady further. The case in hand is a case of such misplaced sympathy. It is high time that courts become sensitive to delays in justice delivery system and realize that adjournments do dent the efficacy of judicial process and if this menace is not controlled adequately, the litigant public may lose faith in the system sooner than later. The courts, particularly trial courts, must ensure that on every date of hearing, effective progress takes place in the suit."
However, this is only a part of the story. The order-sheet reveals that on a number of occasions, the lawyers have abstained from work on account of strike calls. The learned trial court could not conduct the proceedings on account of lawyers' strike on 24.08.2019, 24.08.2019 and 25.09.2019. Clearly, the ordersheet contains irrefutable evidence that the process of the courts was impeded by lawyers abstaining from work on account of strike calls. Counsels cannot hold the judicial process to ransom by irresponsibly going on strike and bringing the work in the judgeship to a stand still. Such conduct of the lawyers is in the teeth of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and another reported at (2003) 2 SCC 45 as well as in Krishnakant Tamrakar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported at AIR 2018 SC 3635.
The courts cannot be held to ransom by the conduct of the parties or the strikes of the counsels. The process of law has to run its course unimpeded by any such obstructions. The courts have to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law even when the parties or counsels are not cooperating with the trial proceedings. The court proceedings cannot be brought to a stand still by striking lawyers or lethargic litigants.
In view of the preceding discussion, the matter is remitted to the learned executing court / learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etawah, before whom the Execution Case No. 05 of 2018 (Ram Siya Vs. Chhote Lal @ Arun Prakash and others) is pending. The following measures shall facilitate the learned executing court / learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etawah, to dispose of the said proceedings expeditiously:
(I) The learned executing court / learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etawah, is directed to decide the Execution Case No. 05 of 2018 (Ram Siya Vs. Chhote Lal @ Arun Prakash and others) preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(II) The learned executing court / learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etawah, shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.
(III) In case any adjournment is granted in the paramount interest of justice, the learned executing court / learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etawah, shall impose costs not below Rs. 1,000/- for each adjournment upon the party seeking adjournment.
(IV) In case the counsels abstain from work on account of strike calls, the learned executing court / learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etawah, shall proceed in the absence of such counsels and pass appropriate orders.
(V) The learned executing court / learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etawah, shall record the names of counsels who abstain from work pursuant to strike call before the learned executing court / learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etawah, and shall not permit such counsels to appear in this case on all future dates of hearing.
(VI) The learned executing court / learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Etawah, shall, if required, proceed with the trial on a day to day basis to ensure that the above stipulated time period of deciding the Execution Case No. 05 of 2018 (Ram Siya Vs. Chhote Lal @ Arun Prakash and others), preferably within six months is adhered to.
With the aforesaid direction, the petition is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.2.2020 Dhananjai