Disposed

Shyam Kumar v. Civil Judge (J.D.) Sadar, Faizabad and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Mar 2024/1318/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court under Article 227 refused to decide merits of pending civil suit but directed trial court to dispose interim injunction application within three months citing Yashpal Jain, emphasizing ADR options and strict trial diary maintenance to curb post-2017 delays.

What did the court decide?

Order passed directing respondent Civil Judge to decide pending temporary injunction application within three months after giving parties full opportunity of hearing but without unnecessary adjournmen

Shyam Kumar Vs Civil Judge (J.D.) Sadar… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:23255

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1318 of 2024 Petitioner :- Shyam Kumar Respondent :- Civil Judge (J.D.) Sadar, Faizabad And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Dhar Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

In view of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the privaterespondent(s) is hereby dispensed with.

¶7

The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-

¶8

"I. Issue an order or direction to the opposite party no. 1 to decide the Original Suit No. 124/2017 Shyam Kumar Vs. Awadesh Yadav and others which is pending since 2017., in the interest of justice.

¶9

II. Issue an order or direction to the opposite party no. 1 to decide the temporary injunction application (6 C) which is pending in the above referred suit, in the interest of justice"

¶10

Considered the facts as stated including the period of pendency of the suit i.e. about 6 years as also that the application seeking temporary injunction(6C) has not been disposed of till date thought as per the circular issued by this Court on administrative side on 16.08.2017, an application seeking temporary injunction should be disposed of finally within six months and para 47 of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yashpal Jain Versus Sushila Devi reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1377 , which reads as under:-

¶11

" 47. The following directions are issued:

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

iii. All courts at Districts and Talukas shall ensure after the pleadings

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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).

¶21

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.

¶22

x. At conclusion of trial the oral arguments shall be heard

¶23

immediately and continuously and judgment be pronounced within the period stipulated under Order XX of CPC.

¶24

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.

¶25

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."

¶26

Upon due consideration of aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of with following terms:-

¶27

(i) Civil Judge (J.D.), Sadar, Faizabad, is directed to consider and decide the pending application, seeking temporary injunction, in issue, quoted in the prayer clause, expeditiously, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment in this regard.

¶28

(ii) The Civil Judge (J.D.), Sadar, Faizabad, shall make all endeavour to conclude the proceedings, expeditiously.

¶29

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either party on merits and the Authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶30

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶31

Order Date :- 18.3.2024

¶32

Jyoti/-

¶33

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shyam Kumar v. Civil Judge (J.D.) Sadar, Faizabad and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Kumar v. Civil Judge (J.D.) Sadar, Faizabad and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Sundar @ Sundar Lal Vs the Commissioner Ayodhya Mandal Ayodhya and Ors.

Jumayee Vs D.D.C and Ors.

Dharmendra Kumar Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Jyoti Sharma Thru. Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma Vs Presidding Officer Debt. Recovery Tribunal Lko. and Another

Munna Singh Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Transport Lko. U.P. and 2 Others

Shishir Kumar Vs Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lko. and 2 Others