Delhi High Court Expedites Trial In 40-Yr-Old Suit Pending Before Trial Court

Without getting into the controversy of what caused the delay in adjudication, a Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva observed that "since the Suit has been pending for over 41 (years), trial court is directed to expedite the proceedings and endeavour to conclude the same preferably within a period of six months."

The Court also preponed the next date of hearing to December 15, 2020, for the Trail Court to set up a schedule for expeditious disposal.

The direction was made in a petition filed by Muhammad Ajmal, aggrieved by order dated 23.11.2020 whereby the Trial Court had directed the listing of the Suit for a long date.

The Petitioner had submitted that the Suit was listed on 19.12.2020 for a physical hearing and in view of the present pandemic, it would not be possible to physically appear in the proceedings.

Responding to this, the Court observed,

"In view the advisories issued by the High Court, petitioner cannot be asked to appear physically unless the advisory is modified by the High Court… In view of the above, trial court is directed to take up the proceedings through video conferencing and not to list the proceedings for a physical hearing unless all the parties consent to the same."

The Judge clarified that in case parties do not appear even through virtual mode even after being intimated, the Trial Court is free to proceed in accordance with law.

The Petitioner had contended that the suit was filed as far back as on 16.02.1980 and has been pending since then. It was contended that the Respondent had been delaying the progress of the suit after obtaining an interim protection on 20.07.1982.

This was disputed by the Respondent who submitted that the progress was delayed on account of the fact that proceedings had been adjourned sine-die in view of the pendency of another proceedings.

Related News:

Recently, the Calcutta High Court expressed strong displeasure over its Registry for failure to list a habeas corpus petition filed in the year 1997, for as many as 23 years, despite explicit directions to list the matter after three months.

Taken aback by such negligence, a Bench of Chief Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Justice Arijit Banerjee suggested that in such cases, proceedings for misconduct should be initiated against errant officers.

Case Title: Muhammad Ajmal v. Anjuman E Khuddam Qabristan Dargah Hazrat Khwaja Baki Billa & Anr.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order