In a most significant development, we have seen how as recently as on October 20, 2023, it is none other than the Apex Court itself which has in a most learned, laudable, landmark and learned judgment titled Yashpal Jain vs Sushila Devi & Ors in Civil Appeal No. 4296 of 2023 and cited in Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 948 and also cited in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 916 while expressing serious concerns and utmost anguish at the pendency of cases in the country issued a slew of directions to ensure the speedy  disposal of cases especially those pending for over five years. While delivering the judgment in a civil appeal, the Bench noted with anguish that the litigating commenced in the Trial Court in 1982 and has been dragging on since last 43 years. The Bench said that it has noted countrywide statistics of pendency from the National Judicial Data Grid and said that joint efforts are needed from the Bar and the Bench to address the issue. The Bench said that it has noted country wide statistics of pendency from the National Judicial Data Grid  and said that joint efforts are needed from the Bar and the Bench to address the key issue.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Aravind Kumar for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice S Ravindra Bhat and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Even after 41 years, the parties to this lis are still groping in the dark and litigating as to who should be brought on record as legal representative of the sole plaintiff Mrs. Urmila Devi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Urmila Devi’ for the sake of brevity). This is a classic case and a mirror to the fact that litigant public may become disillusioned with judicial processes due to inordinate delay in the legal proceedings, not reaching its logical end, and moving at a snail’s pace due to dilatory tactics adopted by one or the other party. The said suit, OS No.2 of 1982, was instituted for the relief to declare the sale deed, executed by Shri Mangal Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘first defendant’ for the sake of convenience) in favour of defendants No.4 to 32 in respect of the suit properties described in the plaints schedule as item No.1 to 8, to be null and void by claiming to be the owner of the said properties; and for a decree of possession of the suit properties with costs.”

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that, “When the aforesaid suit was still at infancy stage the sole plaintiff expired on 18.05.2007. One Mr. Manoj Kumar Jain filed an application to substitute him as her legal heir, by placing reliance on the Will dated 19.05.1999 and claiming to be a legatee under the said registered Will. He also filed an affidavit stating thereunder that Mr. Yashpal Jain (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’ for the sake of convenience) was a witness to the said registered Will. The defendants objected to the said application contending inter alia that the appellant herein was the adopted son of late Urmila Devi by relying upon the adoption deed dated 06.01.1973 duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar. In the said proceedings, the present appellant also filed an affidavit stating thereunder that he was a witness to the Will dated 19.05.1999 executed by Urmila Devi in favour of Manoj Kumar Jain. The application filed by Manoj Kumar Jain came to be allowed by order dated 24.02.2010. 2.1 Being aggrieved by the said Order the legal heirs of the first defendant namely, legal heirs of Mangal Singh, filed a Civil Revision No.2 of 2010 before the District Judge which came to be allowed by setting aside the Order of the Trial Court on the ground that applicant had stated during the course of the revisional proceedings that he would not press the said application and as such directed the Trial Court to consider the application filed by Yashpal Jain-appellant herein and permitted him to file an application seeking condonation of delay along with the application to bring on record the legal representatives of the sole plaintiff, since he had failed to do so earlier. Accordingly, revision application came to be allowed by order dated 02.12.2011 and Mr. Yashpal Jain filed an application before the Trial Court for condoning the delay in filing such application and also prayed for abatement of suit to be set aside. The learned Trial Judge vide Order dated 09.05.2012 allowed the application by setting aside the abatement and permitted Yashpal Jain to be substituted as legal representative of late Urmila Devi.”

As we see, the Bench then points out in para 3 that, “At this juncture, we would like to point out that a careful perusal of the application and the orders passed by the courts below would indicate that the parties and the courts below seem to have proceeded on the footing that they were to adjudicate the rights of a legal heir which if seen in the light of expression used in the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) is impermissible, as it is not referable to ‘legal heir’ but ‘legal representative’ as defined under Section 2 (11) which reads:

“Legal representative” means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued.

On the death of a party to the suit it is the legal representative who is/are entitled to prosecute the proceedings and, in law, represent the estate of the deceased. The legal representative who is brought on record not only includes a legatee under a Will but also an intermeddler of the property who would be entitled to sue and to be sued and/or continue to prosecute the proceedings. This vital aspect seems to have been lost sight of by the courts below conveniently.”

As it turned out, the Bench then discloses in para 4 stating that, “Be that as it may, the aforesaid Urmila Devi who claimed to be Bhumidar and owner in possession of land situated in village Sonargaon, Patti Katulsyun, District Garhwal, Uttarakhand has contended in her suit that the suit schedule properties were looked after by Mangal Singh- the first defendant and as he had fraudulently obtained a Bhumidar Sanad of the land comprising No.77, 3/16 Nalis, she had filed an application under Section 137-A of UP Act No.1 of 1951 before the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Pauri Garhwal, challenging the said Bhumidari Sanad obtained by the first defendant, which was held in her favour by the Tehsildar, and confirmed by the appellate authority. Not being satisfied with the said order, the first defendant had filed a second appeal before the Revenue Board which came to be allowed in favour of Mangal Singh, against which a review petition was filed thereon by Urmila Devi which came to be allowed on 30.08.1982. The said order was challenged before the High Court of Uttarakhand in Writ Petition (M/S) No.342 of 2005 (old No.14655 of 1983) by Mangal Singh. In the said proceedings a substitution application came to be filed by the legal representative of Mangal Singh stating thereunder that Yashpal Jain (appellant herein) is the legal representative of deceased Urmila Devi and prayed for his name to be substituted. The said application came to be allowed vide order dated 24.02.2012 and appellant herein was substituted as the legal representative of Urmila Devi in writ proceedings. There is no further challenge to said order or in other words, it has attained finality.”

Be it noted, the Bench then notes in para 5 that, “As already noticed hereinabove, appellant herein filed an application for substitution as legal representative of the original plaintiff-Urmila Devi along with an application for condoning the delay in filing said application and to set aside the abatement. The said application came to be allowed vide Order dated 09.05.2012. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Legal Representatives of Mangal Singh filed Civil Revision No.4 of 2012 before the District Judge who affirmed the Order of the Trial Court and dismissed the Revision Petition by Order dated 13.12.2012. The legal representatives of Mangal Singh filed WP No.144 of 2013 before the High Court challenging the Orders dated 09.05.2012 and 13.12.2012 passed by the Trial Court and the Revisional Court, respectively. The High Court allowed the writ petition by quashing the impugned orders and rejecting the application of the appellant herein, thereby restoring the original order dated 17.05.2008 wherein Manoj Jain had been ordered for being substituted as legal representative of late Urmila Devi on the strength of the registered Will dated 19.05.1999 propounded by him with a direction to conclude the proceedings within a period of 9 months. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.”

Quite rightly, the Bench enunciates in para 36 expounding that, “In the hallowed halls of justice, where the rights and liberties of every citizen are protected, we find ourselves at a critical juncture. Our Judiciary, the cornerstone of our democratic system, stands as the beacon of hope for those who seek remedy. Yet, it is a solemn truth that we must confront with unwavering resolve—the spectre of delay and pendency has cast a long shadow upon the very dispensation of justice. In this sacred realm, where the scales of justice are meant to balance with precision, the backlog of cases and the interminable delays have reached a disconcerting crescendo. The relentless march of time, while it may heal wounds for some, it deepens the chasm of despair for litigants who await the enforcement of their rights. Hence, It is here, in the chambers of jurisprudence, that we must heed the clarion call of reform with unwavering urgency.”

Most forthrightly, the Bench propounds in para 37 that, “It is undisputedly accepted that the significance of a swift and efficient judiciary cannot be overstated. It is a cornerstone of democracy, a bulwark against tyranny, and the guarantor of individual liberties. The voices of the oppressed, the rights of the marginalized, the claims of the aggrieved—all are rendered hollow when justice is deferred. Every pending case represents a soul in limbo, waiting for closure and vindication. Every delay is an affront to the very ideals that underpin our legal system. Sadly, the concept of justice delayed is justice denied is not a mere truism, but an irrefutable truth. Thus, we stand at a crossroads, not of our choosing but of our duty where the urgency of legal reforms in our judiciary cannot be overstated, for the pendulum of justice must swing unimpeded. The edifice of our democracy depends on a judiciary that dispenses justice not as an afterthought but as a paramount mission. We must adapt, we must reform, and we must ensure that justice is not a mirage but a tangible reality for all.”

Quite significantly, the Bench expounds in para 38 that, “Therefore, in this pursuit, we call upon all stakeholders—the legal fraternity, the legislature, the executive, and the citizens themselves—to join hands in a concerted effort to untangle the web of delay and pendency. We must streamline procedures, bolster infrastructure, invest in technology, and empower our judiciary to meet the demands of our time.”

Most significantly, the Bench then mandates in para 39 holding that, “The time for procrastination is long past, for justice cannot be a casualty of bureaucratic inefficiency. We must act now, for the hour is late, and the call for justice is unwavering. Let us, as guardians of the law, restore the faith of our citizens in the promise of a just and equitable society. Let us embark on a journey of legal reform with urgency, for the legacy we leave will shape the destiny of a nation. In the halls of justice, let not the echoes of delay and pendency drown out the clarion call of reform. The time is now, and justice waits for no one. Hence, the following requests to Hon’ble the Chief Justices of the High Courts are made and directions are issued to the trial courts to ensure ‘speedy justice’ is delivered.

RE: POINT NO.3

For the reasons afore-stated, we proceed to pass the following                                        

ORDER

1. Civil Appeal is allowed and the order dated 28.11.2019 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No.144 of 2013 by High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital is set aside and the order dated 09.05.2012 passed by the Trial Court as affirmed in Civil Revision No.4 of 2012 dated 13.12.2012 stands affirmed.

2. The following directions are issued:

i. All courts at district and taluka levels shall ensure proper execution of the summons and in a time bound manner as prescribed under Order V Rule (2) of CPC and same shall be monitored by Principal District Judges and after collating the statistics they shall forward the same to be placed before the committee constituted by the High Court for its consideration and monitoring.

ii. All courts at District and Taluka level shall ensure that written statement is filed within the prescribed limit namely as prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 and preferably within 30 days and to assign reasons in writing as to why the time limit is being extended beyond 30 days as indicated under proviso to sub-Rule (1) of Order VIII of CPC.

iii. All courts at Districts and Talukas shall ensure after the pleadings are complete, the parties should be called upon to appear on the day fixed as indicated in Order X and record the admissions and denials and the court shall direct the parties to the suit to opt for either mode of the settlement outside the court as specified in sub-Section (1) of Section 89 and at the option of the parties shall fix the date of appearance before such forum or authority and in the event of the parties opting to any one of the modes of settlement directions be issued to appear on the date, time and venue fixed and the parties shall so appear before such authority/forum without any further notice at such designated place and time and it shall also be made clear in the reference order that trial is fixed beyond the period of two months making it clear that in the event of ADR not being fruitful, the trial would commence on the next day so fixed and would proceed on day-to-day basis.

iv. In the event of the party’s failure to opt for ADR namely resolution of dispute as prescribed under Section 89(1) the court should frame the issues for its determination within one week preferably, in the open court.

v. Fixing of the date of trial shall be in consultation with the learned advocates appearing for the parties to enable them to adjust their calendar. Once the date of trial is fixed, the trial should proceed accordingly to the extent possible, on day-to-day basis.

vi. Learned trial judges of District and Taluka Courts shall as far as possible maintain the diary for ensuring that only such number of cases as can be handled on any given day for trial and complete the recording of evidence so as to avoid overcrowding of the cases and as a sequence of it would result in adjournment being sought and thereby preventing any inconvenience being caused to the stakeholders.

vii. The counsels representing the parties may be enlightened of the provisions of Order XI and Order XII so as to narrow down the scope of dispute and it would be also the onerous responsibility of the Bar Associations and Bar Councils to have periodical refresher courses and preferably by virtual mode.

viii. The trial courts shall scrupulously, meticulously and without fail comply with the provisions of Rule 1 of Order XVII and once the trial has commenced it shall be proceeded from day to day as contemplated under the proviso to Rule (2).

ix. The courts shall give meaningful effect to the provisions for payment of cost for ensuring that no adjournment is sought for procrastination of the litigation and the opposite party is suitably compensated in the event of such adjournment is being granted.

x. At conclusion of trial the oral arguments shall be heard immediately and continuously and judgment be pronounced within the period stipulated under Order XX of CPC.

xi. The statistics relating to the cases pending in each court beyond 5 years shall be forwarded by every presiding officer to the Principal District Judge once in a month who (Principal District Judge/District Judge) shall collate the same and forward it to the review committee constituted by the respective High Courts for enabling it to take further steps.

xii. The Committee so constituted by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the respective States shall meet at least once in two months and direct such corrective measures to be taken by concerned court as deemed fit and shall also monitor the old cases (preferably which are pending for more than 05 years) constantly.

It is also made clear that further directions for implementation of the above directions would be issued from time to time, if necessary, and as may be directed by this Court.

3. The Secretary General is directed to circulate the copy of this judgment to the Registrar General of all the High Courts for being placed before the respective Chief Justices for a consideration and suitable steps being taken as opined herein above.

4. We make no order as to costs.”

In a nutshell, it thus merits no reiteration that the landmark directions that have been issued by the Apex Court must be implemented promptly so that the huge pendency of cases is brought down substantially. This is the compelling need of the hour also. No denying!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate, s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave, Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.