AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This case presents a typical, at the same time a sad illustration of the oftquoted maxim of laws delays.
The plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction with respect to same immoveable property of not very great consequence situate at
Habbskadal About defendant No. 1 who is the main petitioner in this revision petition, it was stated that he intended to repair his property in such a
way as would injure the plaintiff's share of the property. Therefore defendant No. 1 should be restrained from effecting repairs to his share of the
property in such a way as not to cause any harm to the property of the plaintiff.
In his first written statement, defendant 1 stated that the plaintiff had no right to the property. In the second written statement dated 16357 the
defendant stated that he had nothing to do with the property and that he had been unnecessarily made a defendant in the suit. Though it is not very
necessary for me to state what the defence of defendant No. 1 in the suit was, yet in view of what follows it is worthwhile to make such a mention.
The suit was instituted on 26th Chet 2009, i. e., about 11 years back. The following chronology of proceedings would be of some interest.
The suit having been instituted on 26122009, the defendants were being summoned upto 2052010. On 862010 defendant No. 1 filed his written
statement. On 2762010 exparte proceedings were taken against all the defendants. On the next date, 1572010 exparte proceedings were set
aside. From 1572010 to 22102010 the case was adjourned, when again on 27102010 exparte proceedings were taken against the defendants.
The exparte proceedings were set aside on 20102010. Issues in the suit were for the first time framed on 11110. The plaintiff was directed to
produce his evidence. After one or two hearings the plaintiff put in an application for amendment of the plaint on 212010. The parties got two
adjournments for a compromise, which was never effected Then for three hearings again the plaintiff was given time for presenting an application
for amendment. On the fourth date, 1032011, the suit was dismissed for default of the plaintiff. From 1032011 to 1692010 restoration
proceedings took place which came up for hearing a number of times. On 1692011 the suit having been restored, two more adjournments were
granted for presenting the application for amendment. This application was eventually presented on 29102011. After a number of adjournments
one AH Mohd. who was added as a defendant in the amended plaint, presented his written statement on 13122011. Then the evidence of the
plaintiff was ordered to be produced The order sheet of 13653 recites that a transfer application had been made Eventually the case was
transferred to the court of First Addl. Munsiff from the court of the City Munsiff Srinagar by means of the order of the District Judge dated 22855.
Then for a number of hearings the suit was adjourned for the evidenceof the plaintiff, when again on 171055 another application for amendment
was presented. This application was rejected, and the case was adjourned for the evidence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff then came up in revision to
this Court. His revision application was allowed by this Court vide its order dated 251056.
After a lull of about nine months from 3356 to 4257 on that date the case was adjourned for presentation of another amended plaint. The written
statement with respect to this amended plaint was presented on 16357. From 16357 the case was adjourned without any further proceedings,
every time for the framing of issues. On 24957 again the plaintiff was absent and the suit was adjourned to 30957 when it was again dismissed for
the plaintiff's absence. Later restoration proceedings of the suit took a long time and the suit was ultimately restored on 20858. The suit was again
adjourned seven times for framing of issues. Ultimately on 710'""8 another set of issues, seven in number, was framed. The case was adjourned
from 71158 to 21258 for the evidence of the plaintiff. On 21258 no witness was present and the plaintiff was burdened with Rs. 2 as costs. On
the next date of hearing, i. e, 261258 the suit was again dismissed for default of the plaintiff. Restoration proceedings were started. The suit was
again restored on 7459. The suit was then adjourned for the evidence of the plaintiff. On 18659 again exparte proceedings were taken against the
defendants which were set aside on the next date of hearing, 19659, on payment of Rs. 5 costs. A number of hearings followed for the evidence of
the plaintiff, but nobody was present upto 28959, on which date the plaintiff closed his evidence. The suit was adjourned for evidence of the
defendants to 81059.
It appears that from 2212010 to 28959, i. e., during a period of six years, the plaintiff examined eight witnesses in all. On 81059 the defendants
were mulcted with Rs. 12 costs for having filed the processfee rather late On 201059 defendant No. 1 was again absent and exparte proceedings
were taken against him. The other defendants did not want to lead any evidence except their own statements. The case was adjourned two or
three times. On 291059 the defendants were absent and a decree under O. 18 r. 2 of the Civil P. C. was passed against them. An appeal was
preferred against that decree which was accepted by the District Judge on 31860. The suit again came to life in the trial court on 61060. On nine
hearings the defendants were summoned but they did not turn up till their service was effected by a notice in a newspaper. The case came up
before the trial court in the presence of the parties on 294 61 when it was adjourned to 20561 for the evidence for the defendants. From 2059162
it was adjourned to 2261961 when the witnesses for the defendants were ordered to be summoned for 17761. On 17761 the petitioners were
asked to produce their evidence on the next date of hearing which was fixed on 17351 on payment of Rs. 10 costs. On 17861 the petitioners
were given Dasti summons and were asked to get service effected. On 9961 to which date the suit was adjourned no witness was present. The
defendants were again burdened with Rs. 10 costs. From 9961 the suit was adjourned to 131061 when the defendants were again mulcted with
Rs. 10 costs.
The defendants petitioners went in revision to this court against the two orders on 17761 and 9961. That revision petition was disposed of by my
learned predecessorinoffice, Nair J, on 13 962. The file was received by the trial court on 15962. The trial court ordered production of the
evidence of the defendants and directed that the witnesses be summoned.
On 19363 again exparte proceedings were taken against all the defendants which were ordered to be set aside vide order dated 25363 on
payment of Rs. 15 costs. These costs have not been paid upto date. Then on 12463 the order of the trial court states that certain files summoned
had not been received. On 1663 the trial court closed the evidence of the defendants, because it was a very old case. Against that order the
defendants have come up in revision to this court.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I need not have given in so much detail the history of the proceedings of this case, but as I said in
the beginning of this order this case presents a very sad picture of how proceedings in courts of law are delayed. It is patent that in this suit which is
a simple one and in which the petitioners have practically put in no serious defence, the case has been going on for the last eleven years in the
courts below. During these 11 years the suit itself has been adjourned as may as 131 times upto 1663. There are as many as or may be even more
dates on which restoration proceedings and proceedings in appeals and revisions came up, though I have excluded them from calculation. It will be
further noticed that the suit was dismissed three times for default of the plaintiff and it was restored all the three times Exparte proceedings were
taken against the defendants as many as six times. They were set as de some times on no payment and some times on a nominal payment of costs.
Two revisions and one appeal also have arisen out of this suit so far. The plaint was amended two times and issues were struck three times. First
time two issues were struck on 1112010 out of which one was the common issue of relief. The second time on 20122011 three issues were struck
On 71158 seven issues were again framed. But it is interesting to note that there is no corelation between these issues framed from time to time and
it appears that every time the trial court struck new issues it was absolutely ignorant of any previous issues having been framed in the case. During
the period of six years as already stated, the plaintiff examined eight witnesses. During the subsequent five years not a single witness of the
defendant was produced. The defendant went in revision against two orders of the trial court dated 17761. In the order of the court dated 13362
important observations were made with respect to the conduct of the present petitioner No. 1. His revision application was dismissed by the Court
and he was directed to pay Rs. 25 as costs. So apart from the other observations made in that order of my learned predecessor, one thing is clear
that the orders of 17761 and 9961 do stand.
Before taking up the merits of this revision petition, I would like to make the following observations generally with respect to the conduct of this suit
in the trial court. It is painful to note and even objectionable to discover that no presiding officer has over applied his mind to the facts of this case.
As would appear the case has been adjourned most frivolously without any rhyme or reason from time to time, and for striking of issues the suit
has been adjourned for more than half a dozen times at a stretch. As already stated, the suit was a very simple one and the issues ultimately framed
from time to time bear out this fact. Dismissals for default and restorations, taking exparte proceedings against the defendants and their setting aside
have been the rule in this case without any serious attention on the part of the trial court to the merits of either the restoration or the setting aside of
the exparte proceedings application. This case has changed a number of presiding officers, some of whom have gone upto the cadre of Addl.
District Judges and one of them, the late Mr. G. N. Mir has died, and one another Mr. SirajudDin has been transferred to the Law Secretariat.
This case and the manner in which it has been handled by the successive presiding officers brings little credit to the administration of justice in this
country. It is again regrettable that despite repeated directions from this court to subordinate courts to avoid unnecessary adjournments and delay,
some of the subordinate judicial officers are still so careless as to respect those directions by breach rather than by observance.
About the merits of this revision petition I have to observer as follows. In the first place expart proceeding have been taken against the defendants
on 19363 which were directed to be set aside on payment of Rs. 15 costs. These costs were never paid by the defendants, On the other hand
there is an application on a plain piece of paper without any courtfee by the petitioners dated' 12463 in which they make a request for remission of
these costs. As exparte proceedings are still subsisting against the defendantspetitioners, they have no locus standi to challenge the subsequent
order of 1663 by means of a revision.
In the previous revision petition which was disposed of by this Court on 13862, the orders of 17761 and 9961 have been kept in tact. According
to the order of 17761 the defendants had taken the responsibility of producing their evidence. This commitment they have not fulfilled. On 9961
also the defendants were given time to produce evidence on payment of costs This order also they have not complied. Naturally in view of the
decision in the revision petition, the defendantspetitioners cannot be permitted any more opportunity of producing evidence, and I cannot sit in
revision over the orders of my learned predecessor nor review them.
After the revision was disposed of by this court on 13862 the trial court again with its eyes shut passed orders which were in direct violation of the
orders of this court. There was no direction for summoning of witnesses How the trial court ordered summoning of witnesses in face of this order
of this court, I fail to understand. Then again after having taken exparte proceedings against the defendants on 19863, the trial court on 25362
ordered cancellation of exparte proceedings on payment of Rs. 15 costs by the defendants. These costs were never paid and yet the trial court,
ignoring and flouting its own orders on subsequent dates, adjourned the case again, some times calling certain files and some times summoning the
evidence of the defendants. This practice also is most unwarranted.
It has been observed frequently that courts of law forget the elementary principles of procedure while dealing with cases. The defendants, while
summoning the witnesses on 3861 and 3959 summoned certain files. From 3959 to 12463 nobodyneither the defendants nor the courtever made
any mention of summoning of any files. Then abruptly, I do not know how. on 32363 the court recorded an order that the summoned files had not
been received. The mandatory formalities of procedure as Laid down in O. 13 r. 10 of the Civil P. C for summoning of records by courts are
usually neglected and were disregarded in this case. Subr. (2) of this rule reads as under :
Every application made under this rule shall (unless the Court otherwise directs) be supported by an affidavit showing how the record is material
to the suit in which the application is made, and that the applicant cannot without unreasonable delay or expense obtain a duly authenticated copy
of the record or of such portion thereof as the applicant requires, or that the production or the original is necessary for the purposes of justice.
Under this subrule an application to summon any record from any court must be supported by an affidavit. The affidavit must show how the record
is material to the suit. It must further state that the applicant cannot without unreasonable delay and expense obtain a duly authenticated copy of the
record or the production of the original is necessary for the purposes of justice.
In this case without even a formal application the record has been summoned after four years of the request. The request itself was not proper nor
was it in accordance with law. This action of the trial judge is also against the procedure required for such purpose.
The result is that a very simple suit which could have been disposed of within a few months has been dragging on in the courts for the last II years
with so many ramifications and offshoots. It is not imaginable how much of expense it must have meant to the parties.
From a discussion of the above facts on the merits of the revision petition, it is abundantly clear that this revision petition has no life in it.
It is again a frivolous attempt on the part of the petitioner to carry on the proceedings in the suit.
The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 50.