Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 and perused the record.
By means of the writ petition, petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding learned First Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.26, Sultanpur to decide Original Suit No.1134 f 1995 (Asgar Abbas v. Mohd. Israr and others), expeditiously say within stipulated period.
A perusal of the file shows that the suit was filed in the year 1995. Copy of order sheets, contained as Annexure No.3 shows that the evidence of the parties was concluded on 23.07.2008 and since then more than fifty dates were fixed by the learned Trial Court but arguments could not be concluded on one ground or the other. In the meantime, one of the parties died which should have been foreseen by the learned Trial Court in order to deliver the justice. Even after carrying out of the substitution the learned Trial Court has unnecessarily adjourned the case on 8.8.2012, 13.09.2012, 60.10.2012 and 9.11.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 17.12.2012 is fixed for hearing of arguments.
The litigant public has immense faith in the judicial system which should neither be shaken nor attempted to be eroded by the court itself, otherwise, the judicial system would collapse and in result the nation and constitutional mechanism would bound to collapse. The court of law is part of the society and it must keep its fingers tight on the nerves of the society. The public is in no mood to relentlessly wait for justice. The adjournment of hearing for fifty dates after conclusion of evidence is beyond the patience of the public at large and farther than explanation. Such delay is violative of settled principles of natural justice, which acts as deterrence to arrive at arbitrary decision in flagrant interaction of fair play. In order to avoid raising fingers on the capability of a Court, the legislature has made provisions in the form of proviso to Rule 1 of Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under:-
"1. Court may grant time and adjourn hearing.- (1) The court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the Suit for reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the suit."
Not only this under proviso (a) of Rule 2 of Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is provided:-
"(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,"
Learned Trial Court has ignored the provisions as mentioned above and the practice followed by the Courts for centuries together, which has compelled the petitioner to approach this Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction as contained under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is impressed upon the subordinate courts that meaningful endeavour should be made to satisfy the rules of justice, in the ordinary course of nature and in accordance with law, in such a fashion that the litigant may not be unnecessary spend any amount in approaching the superior courts which are already overburdened. The learned Trial Court has enhanced the burden of this Court because of inaction and omission which is neither equitable nor in accordance with law. The great Judges have constantly admonished their brethren of the need for discipline in observing the limitations. A Judge must not rewrite a statute, neither to enlarge nor to contract it. Whatever temptations the statesmanship of policy-making might wisely suggest, construction must eschew interpolation and evisceration. He must not read in by way of creation. He must not read out except to avoid patent nonsense or internal contradiction. The courts and the judicial system has not been created to cause hardship or inconvenience to the aggrieved person who approach the court of law. The courts are bound to redress genuine grievances, in accordance with law, of a litigant who knocks its doors in unambiguous way. The courts cannot depart from a literal or strict construction of the settled norms of justice. The disposal is a rule of which adjournment is an exception, which can be granted only in exceptional circumstances and departure from the rules of procedure is unimaginable. This is what we call 'judicial discipline'. In fact judicial legislature is an oxymoron. The judicial restraint and temptation to do judicial legislation, in violation of the settled rules of procedure should be avoided at all costs for all the time to come.
With these observations, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Trial Court to hear the arguments and conclude the case as expeditiously as possible, without delay and shall not adjourn the case on any ground whatsoever, save as provided under Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Order Date :- 30.11.2012 Ram.