JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for a mandamus direct-ting the Court concerned to decide the suit No. 652 of 1984 Ayodhya Sahai v. Lalji Sahai and Ors., expeditiously.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
3. The facts of this case disclose a shocking state of affairs. The aforesaid suit was filed as far back as in 1984 for an injunction against the defendants to restrain them from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the property in dispute and for an injunction not to demolish the Hata or make any construction ever the said land. As stated in the petition, the suit' was registered on 13-9-1984 in the trial court, and on 21-2 1985 the Court issue summons to the defendants fixing 23-5-1985 for filing written statement and 30-5-1985 for framing issues Services on the defendants was effected and they put in appearance on 30-9-1986 and took two months time to file a written statement. 17-12-1986 was fixed for written statement and issues, as is evident from the order sheet, copy of which is annexure-2 to the writ petition. It has been stated in Paragraph-7 of the writ petition that as yet issues have not been framed in the suit. On 4-4-1997 the petitioner made a representation in the Court concerned for speedy disposal of the suit and enforcement of the temporary injunction order. True copy of the representation dated 4-4-1997 is annexure-3 to the writ petition. On that application the Court concerned fixed 24-7-1997 for objection and disposal, but on 24-7-1997 it has fixed the application for 8-12-1997.
4. In paragraph-12 of the writ petition it is alleged that since no attention was paid to the petitioner's prayer for speedy disposal of the suit, he filed a miscellaneous application dated 26-5-1997 before respondent No. 1, the District Judge, for a direction to respondent No. 2 for speedy disposal of the suit, True copy of the application dated 26-5-97 is annexure-4 to the writ petition On that application the District Judge passed an order dated 28-5-1997 directing the trial court to pay special attention to the disposal of the case and to see that the defendants do not succeed in adopting delaying tactics True copy of the said order is annexure-5 to the writ petition. However despite this order, the trial court has not paid any heed to it and is not disposing of the suit, hence this writ petition.
5. The above facts disclose a lamentable state of affairs. 13 years' have passed since the institution of the suit, but as yet even issues have not been framed. What kind of justice is this ?
6. In fact a large number of suits, criminal trials and other kind of cases are not being decided expeditiously in this State which is bringing the judiciary into disrepute In our opinion, all suits, criminal trials and other kind of cases must be decided on basis of a time bound programme fixed by the Court at the time of filing of suit or other kind of case, or filing of the charge sheet (in the case of criminal cases) or receipt of the reference order (in labour cases), and the Court must strictly follow this Schedule and both parties shall also be bound by it for only then will the public retain its faith in the judiciary. Justice delayed is justice denied In a large number of cases it has been found by this Court that many of the Judges of the subordinate judiciary are not discharging there duty properly and are not speedily disposing of the cases. It may be pointed out that the proviso of Order XVII Rule 1(2) of the C.P.C. states : -
"(a) when the hearing of the suit has commenced, it shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds that, for the exceptional reasons to be recorded by it, the adjournment of the hearing beyond the following day is necessary.
(b) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party.
(c) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment.
(d) where the illness of a pleader or his inability to conduct the case for any reason, other than his being engaged in another Court, is put forward as a ground for adjournment, the Court shall not grant adjournment unless it is satisfied that the party applying for adjournment could not have engaged another pleader in time.
(e) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his pleader is not present or the party or his pleader, though present in Court, is not ready to examine or cross examine the witness, the Court may, if it thinks fit, record the statement of the witness and pass such orders as it thinks fit dispensing with the examination-in-chief or cross examination of the witness, as the case may be, by the party or his pleader not present or not ready as aforesaid."
7. The above provision shows that there should be day-to-day hearing of all suits, unless for some exceptional reason to be recorded the adjournment of the case become necessary. Such adjournments should not be granted unless there are exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the party. The case should not be adjourned on the ground of illness of a counsel unless the Court is satisfied that the party applying for adjournment could not have engaged another pleader in time.
8. A similar provision exists in Section 309(1) Cr. P.C. to ensure speedily trials in criminal cases.
9. It is distressing, however, to note that the above provisions in Order XVII Rule 1(2) C. P. C. or Section 309(1) Cr.P.C. are hardly ever followed and adhered to by the Courts, although they are mandatory provisions. We therefore, direct that the proviso to Order XVII Rule 1(2) of the C.P.C. and Section 309(1) of the Cr. P.C. must in future be strictly adhered to in all cases in U.P. The principle of these provisions is of general application (i.e. to ensure speedy Justice) and hence the same procedure must also be followed in cases which are other than suits for criminal trial e.g. applications under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, cases under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act etc. '
10. The public in this State, and indeed all over India, is disgusted and in our opinion rightly so, with the delay in deciding the cases in Courts and Tribunals. The judiciary is accountable to the public and hence the time has now come when strong action must be taken against judicial officers who delay in disposal of the cases, who did not sit in Court in time, or rise, before the closing time.
11. We therefore, dispose of this petition with the direction that the aforesaid suit No. 652 of 1984 must be decided within three months of the production of the certified copy of this order before the Court concerned, if necessary, by day-to-day hearing.
12. We also issue a general mandamus to ail subordinate Courts and Tribunals in this State to decide suits, criminal trials labour disputes rent control oases and other cases, on basis of a time bound programme fixed by the Court for each case and usually by day-to-day hearing Parties should not be allowed to deviate from the time schedule and the Court must refuse adjournment sought by counsels of the parties except on rare and exceptional grounds mentioned in Order XVII Rule 1(2)C.P.C On receipt of a copy of this judgment every Court or Tribunal shall fix a time schedule for final disposal of each case in presence of parties, and learned counsel shall be informed that they shall not be allowed to deviate from the time schedule fixed The exercise must start from the next date after receipt of this judgment The learned District Judges and ether Presiding Officers shall be personally responsible for strict compliance of the directions contained in this order.
13. We, further direct that if any suit, criminal trial or other case takes more than two years to decide from the date of Institution, or an appeal takes more than one year, an adverse entry shall be placed on the record of the judicial officer responsible for the delay by the District Judge of the District, and if the errant Judicial Officer is the District Judge himself an adverse entry shall be placed on his record by the Hon'ble Inspecting Judge of the District. Apart from that, it shall amount to a judicial misconduct and further action must be taken against the concerned judicial officers who are responsible for the delay in deciding the cases. This Court will no longer tolerate this state of affairs which is bringing a bad name to the judiciary.
14. The Registrar of this Court is directed to send a copy of this judgment immediately to all Hon'ble Judges of this Court, all the District Judges, Board of Revenue and Presiding Officers of the Tribunals in the State, who in turn shall circulate a copy of this judgment to all the judicial officers and revenue officers in the district Copy of this order shall also be sent to the High Court Bar Association and all the Bar Associations in the district and the D.G.C. (Criminal), D. G. C. (Civil), D.G.C. (Revenue) and all other counsel representing the State and local bodies or local authorities.