Delhi High Court
N.D Sharma vs Central Bank Of India on 26 October, 2018
$~107
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 26.10.2018
+ CM(M) 647/2018 & CM No.44811/2018
N.D SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. R.S. Mathur, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
JUDGMENT
26.10.2018
VINOD GOEL, J.
1. The petitioner sent a complaint dated 26.10.2017 against Sh. Mukesh
Kumar, learned Additional District Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi
(ADJ) to the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice for not disposing of his Civil
Suit No.369/2016 (old No. CS (OS) 58535/2016) (old No.CS (OS)
2464/2011). It was noticed on the administrative side that even after transfer
of his case to the new incumbent, the matter has been adjourned twice for
final arguments. On the orders of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, the
matter is being taken up suo moto under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India for issuing time bound directions to the concerned Court to dispose of
the matter expeditiously.
2. I have heard the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the
respondent.
3. I have perused the record.
4. The record reveals that the matter was listed for final arguments on
04.11.2016. The written submissions were filed by the petitioner/plaintiff on
that day itself. On the next date of hearing i.e. 14.12.2016 written
submissions were filed on behalf of the respondent/defendant and matter
was adjourned to 27.01.2017 for arguments. The case was adjourned to
07.03.2017 for appropriate orders. The parties were also given opportunity
to file copies of citations of judgments. The learned ADJ being on leave on
07.03.2017 the matter was taken up on 11.04.2017. Due to the heavy
workload, he could not pass the order and adjourned the matter to
19.05.2017. On 19.05.2017, 03.07.2017, 27.07.2017, 16.08.2017 and
14.10.2017, the learned ADJ continued to adjourn the matter for the want of
"certain clarifications". Lastly, on 25.10.2017 he adjourned the matter to
29.11.2017 on the ground that the plaintiff intends to file some citations of
judgments. The record further reveals that on the adjourned date of hearing
i.e. 29.11.2017, new incumbent joined the Court and listed the matter for
arguments on 13.02.2018. It is noticed that 13.02.2018 written synopses in
support of final arguments were filed by the plaintiff. The learned ADJ
observed that the record is very bulky and pertains to the year 2011. The
parties were directed to inspect and flag the file. He adjourned the matter for
26.04.2018. On 26.04.2018 after hearing part arguments, the learned ADJ
adjourned the matter to 19.07.2018 for remaining arguments. Learned
counsel for the parties submit that now the matter is fixed for 05.11.2018
before the learned Trial Court.
5. The proviso to Order XX Rule 1 (1) of CPC provides that "where the
judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the
Court to pronounce the judgment within 30 days from the date on which the
hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do
on the ground of the exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of the
case, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment,
and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond sixty days from the date
on which the hearing of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day
so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders."
6. Chapter 11 of Volume I of the Delhi High Court Rules and Orders
lays down following rules for the courts sub-ordinate to the High Court for
"Preparation and Delivery of Judgment":-
"1. Early pronouncement advisable. Parties to have due notice of
the day fixed-- When the trial in Court is over, the Judge should
proceed at once, or as soon as possible to the consideration of his
judgment. If the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour
shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen
days, from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded,
but where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future
day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such date shall not
ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the
hearing of the case was concluded and also if the judgment is not
pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of
the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such
delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be
pronounced and in every case the due notice of the day so fixed shall
be given to the parties or their pleaders). It is essentially necessary
that the judge should proceed to the consideration of the judgement
while the demeanour of the witnesses and their individual
characteristics are fresh in his memory. He should bear in mind that
his first duty is to arrive at a conscentious conclusion as to the true
state of those facts of the case about which the parties are not agreed.
The oral and documentary evidence adduced upon each issue should
be carefully reviewed and considered in the directions.
4. Instances have occurred of judgments not being written until a
considerable time after final arguments in a case have been heard.
This practice is upon to grave objection, and in any case in which
judgment is (sic) written and pronounced within 30 days from the date
on which arguments were heard, a written explanation of the delay
must be furnished by the subordinate Court concerned to the District
Judge. This is not meant to encourage a practice of reserving
judgments; on the contrary, judgments should ordinarily be written as
soon as arguments have been heard. It is only in the exception case
where the Court has to consider many rulings and cannot
conveniently give judgment at once, that there is any justification for
judgment being reserved.
6. Procedure when Judge gives over charge before pronouncing
Judgment--Every District Judge or Sub-Judge proceeding on leave
or transfer, must, before making over the charge, sign a certificate
that he has written judgments in all cases in which he has heard
arguments. Should an officer be forced to lay down his charge
suddenly, he shall, nevertheless, write the judgments in such cases,
and send them for pronouncement to his successor."
7. Having noticed that the new incumbent has already started hearing the
arguments and has also heard part arguments, it is directed that the learned
ADJ-02, New Delhi shall hear the final arguments positively on the next
date so fixed i.e. 05.11.2018 and decide the matter on or before 19.11.2018
and file a report. The petition is disposed off accordingly.
8. List on 03.12.2018 for directions. The Registry shall transmit the
copy of order immediately to the concerned Court through the learned
District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi for compliance.
VINOD GOEL, J.
OCTOBER 26, 2018
"sandeep"
