Telangana High Court

Sri. Sai Vikram Kinnera vs Smt. Swetha Lingala on 29 December, 2023

Author: T. Vinod Kumar

Bench: T. Vinod Kumar

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

         CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2815 of 2023

ORDER:

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking a direction for

early disposal of F.C.O.P.No.203 of 2019 before the Principal

District & Sessions Judge - cum - Family Court, Medchal-

Malkajgiri District, at Malkajgiri.

2. Heard Smt. T.S. Subha Rajeswari, learned counsel for the

petitioner and perused the record.

3. The petitioner (husband) herein had filed the underlying OP

under section 13(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 seeking

divorce from the respondent.

4. The petitioner herein submits that even after the lapse of four

(4) years from the date of institution, the underlying OP is still at

the stage of trial. It is further submitted that the prolonged litigation

is causing the petitioner mental agony; and that the same is also

diminishing his future prospects. He therefore prays for a direction

to the Trial Court for early disposal of the main OP.

5. I have taken note of the submissions made.

6. A perusal of the record indicates that there were judicial

delays. Although, it also appears that several adjournments were

granted at the behest of both the petitioner and the respondent

herein. A litigant who plays a role in causing delay by seeking

incessant adjournments, cannot be permitted to entirely shift the

blame on the Trial Court. However, this Court is of the view that

the Trial Court ought not to have been lenient in granting such

adjournments. The scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(for short 'the Code, 1908') fixes several procedural timelines to

ensure timely delivery of justice, more particularly with regard to

conducting trial on a day-to-day basis. Therefore, this Court is of

the view that the Trial Court ought to have kept in mind the scheme

of the Code, 1908 while granting adjournments.

7. It is imperative to remember that the wheels of justice can

only turn smoothly when all the stakeholders function responsibly.

The Supreme Court in Yashpal Jain Vs. Sushila Devi and Ors 1,

taking a note of the rampant delay in disposal of cases has

2023/INSC/948 : MANU/SC/1184/2023

formulated certain direction for time adjudication. The said

directions are as under:

"42. 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 Code of Civil Procedure 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 Code of Civil Procedure. 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 Code of Civil Procedure.

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.

43. 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."

(emphasis supplied)

8. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is appropriate to

direct the Trial Court to proceed with the matter in an expeditious

manner keeping in view the aforesaid direction of the Apex Court.

It is needless to state that the direction to conduct trial on a day to

day basis should be read in light of the directions No. (v), (vi) and

(viii); and any plea of adjournment sought for by the parties shall

be decided in the light of Order 17 Rule (1) of the Code, 1908 read

with direction No. (ix) issued by the Apex Court in Yashpal Jain's

case (supra).

9. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed

of subject to the above observations.