It is most regrettable that the tendency of dragging on the litigation pertaining to civil disputes by unscrupulous litigants has taken its deep roots in our judicial system. Even though time and again the Apex Court and the High Courts in our country have been expressing displeasure in no uncertain terms, we are not succeeding in curbing this menace. Despite sweeping amendments introduced to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 to cut down undue delays, they hardly have any impact. By using their ingenuity, the litigants obviously on the able legal advice are continuing to frustrate the earnest efforts of the Courts for early disposal of cases. The clever litigants as they are they do not heed to fair legal advice and often expect their lawyers to use all their experience and expertise to file series of interlocutory applications from the beginning of the litigation at every stage. Instances galore that even after closing of arguments after full-fledged trial they come out with applications for re-opening of the case on pretexts, such as, amendment of pleadings, filing additional documents, further examination of witnesses or examination of new witnesses, appointment of Advocate Commissioners, sending disputed documents for expert’s opinion etc. Substantial time of the trial Courts is being consumed on disposal of these applications. The loosing party invariably approaches the appellate and revisional Courts, as the case may be. This is the typical example of one such case where the petitioner successfully invoked its remedy at all three stages by filing IA, appeal against order passed in the IA and a revision before this Court. It will not be a surprise if the petitioner approaches the Apex Court against the present order. While a litigant is entitled to avail his legal remedies for bona fide purposes, he cannot be allowed to abuse the process of the law and Courts. Such practice if not curbed will derail the judicial system and erode people’s faith in the rule of law. These very litigants when occasion arises cry hoarse from the roof-tops criticising the judicial system in the country for long pendency and inordinate delays in disposal of the cases. Indubitably, the litigant public and the Bar are equal stakeholders along with the Bench in dispensation of justice. They should realise that unless they extend their whole hearted cooperation to the Bench in its endeavour for quick disposal of cases by avoiding resorting to filing frivolous petitions with the sole intention of dragging on the litigation, it will be well-nigh impossible for the Courts to reduce pendency and provide speedy justice to the litigant public.
