Delhi High Court
M/S Shushre Securities Pvt Ltd vs M/S Times A & M (India ) Limited & Ors on 2 March, 2020
$~35
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 2nd March, 2020
+ CM(M) 98/2020 and CM APPL. 3378/2020
M/S SHUSHRE SECURITIES PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil K. Khaware, Ms. Azma
Zaidi and Mr. Virendra Singh,
Advocates (M: 9810027839).
versus
M/S TIMES A & M (INDIA ) LIMITED & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Sharma and Mr. Sahil Batra,
Advocates (M: 8920756651).
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition was filed by the Petitioner herein/Plaintiff
seeking expeditious disposal and judgment in the application for leave to
defend. The prayer in the petition reads as under:
"(a) direct the disposal of the leave to defend
application by the ld predecessor judge Ms Surya Malik
Grover, ADJ - 01 (South East), Saket, New Delhi in
terms of circular/notice dated 24/12/2019 as the matter
was reserved for order on 16.04.2019 itself.
(b) In the alternative, the incumbent/successor Judge,
Ms Shelly Arora, ld ADJ- 01 ( South East) Saket, New
Delhi may be directed to conclude the hearing on
24/01/2020 i.e. date fixed and pronounce the judgment
on the said application of leave to defend on
24/01/2020 or in any event within Seven (7) days
thereafter, by conducting day to day hearing, if
necessary.
(b) pass any other and such order/s as may be deemed
necessary and expedient in the interest of justice."
2. The Petitioner filed a suit under Order XXXVII CPC seeking
recovery of a sum of Rs. 41,08,963/- along with 18% interest w.e.f. 1st May,
2014 till realisation. In terms of the provisions of Order XXXVII CPC,
memo of appearance was filed by the Defendants and thereafter the Plaintiff
has filed summons for judgement. The Defendants have also sought leave to
defend. On 17th August, 2016, the Trial Court records that the pleadings are
complete in respect of the leave to defend application. The matter is
thereafter partly heard on the leave to defend application on 27 th October,
2018. Finally, the arguments are concluded in the said application on 16th
April, 2019. However, the matter is continuously adjourned thereafter
repeatedly for clarifications if any /orders. Till the time of filing of this
petition, orders were not pronounced. The Petitioner filed the present
petition seeking the prayers extracted above inasmuch as considerable time
has lapsed i.e. since 2016 in a summary suit, and orders were not being
pronounced in the leave to defend application.
3. On the last date, i.e., 28th January 2020, the Trial Court record was
summoned and notice was also issued to the Defendants. Ld. counsel has
entered appearance for the Defendants and submits that the Judicial Officer
has now changed and thus, the erstwhile judicial officer who had heard the
matter is no longer available. He has no objection if expeditious disposal of
the leave to defend application is directed by this Court.
4. This Court, on 28th January 2020, had also noticed that the practice of
adjourning the matters for orders repeatedly, after arguments are concluded,
is usual in the Trial Courts. Accordingly, a report was sought from the
Registrar General to collate the data in respect of such cases. The directions
passed in the last order are as under:
"6. While this matter was being heard, several counsels
present in Court have intervened and submitted that the
practice of adjourning matters for clarifications/orders,
after hearing is concluded is quite prevalent in the
District Courts. In view of the above, the worthy
Registrar General is directed to collate the data from all
District Judges as to the number of cases including suits,
petitions, applications etc., which after conclusion of
arguments are adjourned for orders/clarifications by
each of the Additional District Judges and District
Judges (Commercial Courts). Let the said report be
placed before the Court before the next date of hearing.
Copy of this order be sent to the worthy Registrar
General today itself."
5. The ld. Registrar General has now put up a report after collating the
data in respect of the number of cases which are pending for
clarification/orders, after arguments have been heard. The same shows that
in several districts, there are a number of cases wherein the
applications/matters are pending for judgment/orders. A tabular statement of
the same in respect of the various districts is as under:-
Name of Court No of cases which after
conclusion of hearing
are adjourned for
orders/clarification
South West (Dwarka) Nil
Shahdara (Karkardooma) Nil
Delhi)
6. The above tabulation as put up by the ld. Registrar General clearly
confirms that the practice of adjourning matters for clarification/orders, after
arguments have been concluded, is quite prevalent in the Trial Courts and
the same needs to be avoided completely as the practice of non-pronouncing
of orders can lead to enormous frustration amongst the litigants and also
lead to pendency in the Courts.
7. In Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 the Supreme Court
has clearly directed that once the matters are heard, the orders would have to
be pronounced within a reasonable period. The observations of the Supreme
Court are as under:
"8. The intention of the legislature regarding
pronouncement of judgments can be inferred from
the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Sub-section (1) of Section 353 of the Code provides
that the judgment in every trial in any criminal
court of original jurisdiction, shall be pronounced
in open court immediately after the conclusion of
the trial or on some subsequent time for which due
notice shall be given to the parties or their
pleaders. The words "some subsequent time"
mentioned in Section 353 contemplate the passing
of the judgment without undue delay, as delay in
the pronouncement of judgment is opposed to the
principle of law. Such subsequent time can at the
most be stretched to a period of six weeks and not
beyond that time in any case. The pronouncement
of judgments in the civil case should not be
permitted to go beyond two months."
8. Recently, in Deepti Khera v. Siddharth Khera [CM (M) 1637/2019,
decided on 18th November, 2019], as also in Y. N. Gupta (Deceased) Thr.
LR v. M/s. M A Ramzana [CM (M) 1827/2019, decided on 24 th December,
2019], this Court had directed as under:-
"Deepti Khera v. Siddharth Khera
9. While this Court is conscious of the fact that there are
pressures on the Trial Courts, non-pronouncement of
orders for more than a year cannot be held to be
justified. It has been observed in several matters that
trial courts keep matters `FOR ORDERS' for months
together and sometimes orders are not pronounced for
even 2-3 years. Thereafter the judicial officer is
transferred or posted in some other jurisdiction and the
matter has to be reargued. Such a practice puts
enormous burden on the system and on litigants/lawyers.
The usual practice ought to be to pronounce orders
within the time schedule laid down in the CPC as also
the various judgements of the Supreme Court. In civil
cases maximum period of two months can be taken for
pronouncing orders, unless there are exceptional cases
or there are very complex issues that are involved."
Y. N. Gupta (Deceased) Thr. LR v. M/s. M A
Ramzana
3. The practice of trial courts adjourning matters
repeatedly `FOR ORDERS' and not pronouncing orders,
has attained epidemic proportions, as is being seen in
several matters.
4. This petition is reflective of the incessant practice of
Trial Courts of repeatedly adjourning a matter for
orders, after hearing arguments. A perusal of the order
sheet of the Appellate Court in this case, which was
presided over by two different ld. District & Sessions
Judges, shows that since April, 2019, the appeal is being
heard and is being adjourned for orders on almost every
date. More than 10 hearings have taken place, however,
the orders are yet to be pronounced. On each date, either
the order-sheet shows that the matter is listed for orders
or that it is part-heard.
...
20. The repeated adjourning of matters for orders
reflects extremely poorly on the Court system. Litigants
would lose faith if orders are not passed by the Court
after arguments are heard. Such a practice cannot be
permitted. Once arguments are heard, the Court has an
obligation to pass orders within a reasonable time.
Repeated hearing of arguments also increases the
litigation costs for litigants, as they have to incur
expenses for legal representation, etc., Such a practice
would also make access to justice unaffordable."
9. Accordingly, reiterating the directions by this Court in Deepti Khera
(supra) and YN Gupta (supra) and the binding judgment of the Supreme
Court in Anil Rai (supra), the present petition is disposed of with the
direction that the respective District Judges in the said districts may take
appropriate steps in order to ensure that once the arguments are heard, the
orders are passed in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and
matters are not simply adjourned for 'ORDERS' and 'Clarifications' after
arguments are concluded. The report put up by the Registrar General along
with the data be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate
directions, if any, on the administrative side. The report be also retained as
part of the judicial record of this petition.
10. In this petition, the suit is stated to be listed on 3rd April, 2020 before
the Trial Court. After hearing arguments on the leave to defend application,
the trial Court shall dispose of the same expeditiously and in any event, on
or before 30th May, 2020. The petition and all pending applications are
disposed of. Dasti.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MARCH 02, 2020/MR/A.S.
