'Typical Illustration Of Miscarriage Of Justice'; Rajasthan HC Shocked Over A 1981 Suit Still Stuck At Defence Evidence Stage
While giving directions to expedite the trial in a suit pending for over 40 years, Rajasthan High Court has recently come down heavily on the long pendency of revenue suits in the state. While disposing of the matter, the court mandated the concerned Sub Divisional Officer to decide the suit within 6 months, without granting any more unnecessary adjournments.Consequently, High Court also...
While giving directions to expedite the trial in a suit pending for over 40 years, Rajasthan High Court has recently come down heavily on the long pendency of revenue suits in the state.
While disposing of the matter, the court mandated the concerned Sub Divisional Officer to decide the suit within 6 months, without granting any more unnecessary adjournments.
Consequently, High Court also asked the Chief Secretary to constitute an 'Arrears Review Committee' to monitor the progress in the oldest pending revenue cases every three months. Similarly, the Chief Secretary is also required to submit a compliance report to the court within six months about the steps taken for the speedy disposal of old cases.
The single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand has also emphasised the importance of the revenue courts strictly adhering to the set of directions issued by the apex court in Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 916.
“Now, the time has come to change the old mindset of the litigants that cases are filed by the grandparents and the judgments are heard by their grandchildren…Time has come to change such situation and work culture and get out of the adjournment culture…as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishwarlal Mali Rathod [LL 2021 SC 500]”, the bench sitting at Jaipur observed.
The suit was originally filed before the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Rajgarh in 1981 by the petitioners for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants. The appointment of 'Receiver' by the SDO was then challenged before the Revenue Appellate Authority which quashed the above order in favour of petitioners. Later, the Board of Revenue upheld the order of RAA. In 2002, the petitioners challenged these orders and High Court disposed off the civil writ petition with a direction to the SDO to adjudicate the suit within five months. Even after 20 years, the suit is still at the stage of defence evidence due to the repeated adjournments sought by the parties and granted by the revenue court. The suit was later transferred to SDO, Reni.
Recently, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking a direction to the Reni SDO to decide the suit within 6 months.
“The instant case is a glaring example of misuse of the process of law where adjournments are consistently sought by both the sides since last more than forty years for recording their evidence… the present case is a typical illustration of miscarriage of justice where the suit filed in the year 1981 has rolled as far about half a century i.e. 43 years”, the court initially noted in the order that the concept of 'right to speedy trial' guaranteed by Article 21 has been grossly violated in this case.
While analysing the timeline of steps taken in this case, the court also opined that no litigant is expected to abuse the procedure conceptualised in the Civil Procedure Code. Terming the adjournment culture as a 'cancer corroding the entire body of judicial system', the court also underscored that no litigant can proceed in a suit as per their whims. A party to a suit has no right to determine when the evidence would be lead in and when the matter should be heard, the judge added. While making these observations, the court also relied upon the views taken by the apex court in cases such as Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd. (2011) 9 SCC 678 and Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand (2013) 5 SCC 202.
In Yashpal Jain, the apex court had framed guidelines for courts at District and Taluka levels to ensure timely execution of summons, filing of written statement, optimum reliance on ADR mechanisms, recording of evidence and arguments and to avoid unnecessary procedural delays in the disposal of cases.
Noting that its high time to issue directions specifically meant for revenue courts, the bench sitting at Jaipur demanded strict adherence to the Yashpal Jain directives and SOPs issued by the apex court. Some additional directions were also issued by the High Court to encourage the taking up of oldest cases on priority.
For this purpose, the revenue courts including the appellate authorities have been asked to earmark and expedite trial in cases pending for over 5-10 years as 'Oldest Cases'. The Revenue officers are required to write the order sheets in the oldest cases in their own handwriting instead of relying upon their staff/court master. Revenue officers should also instruct their staff to keep the old cases in 'red coloured files' for easy identification. Moreover, statistics pertaining to the earmarked 'Oldest Cases' must be forwarded to the Arrears Review Committee constituted at the Divisional Headquarters level on a monthly basis.
The Arrears Review Committee must be led by Senior IAS officers who should convene a meeting four times a year and monitor the oldest cases closely and take corrective measures, the court added. The Chief Secretary has been further asked to circulate a copy of the court order to the District Collectors and the Revenue Officers for strict compliance.
Case Title: Vishambhar Dayal & Ors. v. Jagannath (Now Deceased) Through Legal Heirs & Ors.
Case No: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15797/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj)