JUDGMENT M. Katju and P. Srivastava, JJ.
1. This petition furnishes a typical instance of the alarming state of affairs prevailing in the subordinate judiciary in this State.
2. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 263 of the Succession Act praying for cancellation of the order granting probate. In this case altogether 90 dates were fixed by the District Judge and A.D.J., Bareilly, out of which 43 dates were fixed for final hearing. In our opinion this reveals gross negligence and utter callousness on the part of the subordinate courts. Cases are supposed to be disposed of expeditiously, but it appears that many Judges harass the litigant public by granting adjournments again and again. Whenever the litigant goes to Court he finds that another date has been fixed. In the present case, 90 dates have been fixed and yet the case has not proceeded. Annexure-3 to the affidavit in support of this application is copy of the order sheet showing the orders passed on these 90 days. Many of these orders show that the case was adjourned because the lawyers were on strike.
3. We have also been informed that in many district courts certain lawyers do not allow the Court to function. Many district courts function only 60-65 days in a year. Some members of the bar are habitual of disturbing the functioning of the Court.
4. We have also been informed that often on the mere statement of some members of the bar that no adverse order should be passed the cases are adjourned without any good reason.
5. It may be mentioned that under Order XVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. it is specifically provided that no adjournment shall be granted more than three times during hearings of suits. In our opinion, even these 3 adjournments cannot be claimed as of right, as adjournment is in the discretion of the Court, and cannot be claimed as of right.
6. In our opinion this state of affairs cannot be tolerated any further. The judiciary exists for serving the public, and not for serving lawyer or Judges. The judiciary is accountable to the public, and it is the duty of the Courts to decide cases expeditiously.
7. We, therefore, dispose of this petition with the direction to the Court concerned to decide the application under Section 263 of the Act within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him in accordance with law, failing which disciplinary action will be taken against the Judge concerned.
8. The Registrar General of this Court will communicate this order to the District Judge, Bareilly, forthwith and also to all the District Judges in the State of U. P., who shall in turn communicate it to all the judicial officers in their district. The Registrar General shall also communicate copy of this order to all Presidents and Secretaries of District Bar Associations in the State, and to the Chairman, U. P. Bar Council.
9. We warn all the officers of the subordinate judiciary that disciplinary action shall be taken against those Judges who are avoiding expeditious disposal of cases, and who grant adjournments lightly and unnecessarily. The public is fed up with the delays in deciding cases, and will not tolerate continuation of this state of affairs.
10. We further direct that judicial officers shall not adjourn cases merely because the lawyers are abstaining from work or are on strike. The Supreme Court has held that it is illegal for lawyers to go on strike, vide Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, 2003 (1) AWC 753 (SC) : 2003 (1) SCCD 178 : (2003) 2 SCC 45. We, therefore, direct that Judges in the subordinate judiciary will pass orders in the cases fixed before them even in the absence of lawyers (unless the case has been adjourned by the Court for some good and strong reason on a lawyers application), and if the lawyers obstruct the functioning of the Court the District Judge will call the police to stop this. The people of the State are fed up of lawyers strikes, and in our opinion, rightly so. Enough is enough.
11. List this case again before us on 16.3.2004, by which time compliance report shall be sent to this Court by the District Judge, Bareilly and other District Judges in the State. While we have disposed off this petition it shall be listed again before us so that we can monitor compliance of the directions given by us.