2023 (10) TMI 1503 - SC - Indian Laws

Rejection of impleadment application filed by the appellant - Substitution of appellant as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff - suit pending for trial for past 41 years. Whether the impugned order passed by the High Court whereby the order passed by trial court allowing the impleadment application filed by the appellant herein had been rejected is to be sustained or set aside? - HELD THAT - The records would clearly indicate that Manoj Kumar Jain himself had filed an application accompanied by affidavit before the Revisional Court in Civil Revision No.2 of 2010 stating thereunder that he would not press the application filed by him for substitution and this was sufficient for the High Court to have accepted the plea of the appellant or in other words it should have sustained the order of trial court and ordered for appellant being brought on record as legal representative of deceased Urmila Devi. The impugned order which has resulted in rejection of the application filed by the appellant to be brought on record as legal representative of Urmila Devi if sustained would result in the estate of deceased plaintiff not being represented as a consequence of which suit would abate or would be put to a silent death by the defendants without claim made in the suit being adjudicated on merits. Hence question is answered in favour of the appellant and against respondents and therefore the impugned order is set aside. Whether any further direction or directions requires to be issued for concluding the proceedings in a time bound manner on account of Suit pending for trial for past 41 years? - HELD THAT - The very fact of the pendency of the present suit No. 2 of 1982 in the instant case for the past 41 years is reflective of the fact as to how some of the civil courts are functioning and also depicting how stakeholders are contributing to such delays either directly or indirectly. The procedure that is being adopted by the courts below or specifically the trial courts is contrary to the express provisions of the CPC. It can also be noticed that there are party induced delays. It is laid down under Orders VIII Rule (1) that a defendant shall at or before the first hearing or within 30 days or 90 days as the court may permit present a written statement of his defence. In most cases there would be no difficulty in presenting such a written statement on the date fixed and no adjournment should be given for the said purpose except for a good cause shown and in proper cases costs should be awarded to the opposite side namely realistic costs. However this is seldom found. It is high time that the presiding officers of all the trial courts across the country strictly enforce the time schedule prescribed under sub-rule (1) of Rule (1) of Order VIII in its letter and spirit rather than extending the olive branch on account of said provision being held directory to its illogical end even where circumstances of a particular case does not warrant time being enlarged. Although Order XVII of the CPC indicate under the heading adjournments making it explicitly clear the procedure which requires to be adopted by the civil courts in the matter of trial as evident from plain reading of the said provision would reveal seems to have been completely lost sight of by all the stakeholders which can be held as one of the root cause for delay in disposal of civil cases. Conclusion - i) The High Court s order set aside by reinstating the trial court s decision on substitution. ii) It is imperative to note that about 6 per cent of the population in India is affected by litigation in such a scenario the courts would play an important role in the life of a nation governed by Rule of Law. Petition disposed off.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment include:

• Whether the High Court's order quashing the trial court's decision to substitute the appellant as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff, Urmila Devi, should be sustained or set aside.
• Whether further directions are required to expedite the conclusion of the proceedings in the long-pending Suit No.2 of 1982.
• What final orders should be issued to address the procedural delays in the judicial system?

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Substitution of Legal Representative

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: The issue revolves around the interpretation of the term "legal representative" as defined under Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which includes a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the trial court and the revisional court had correctly allowed the substitution of the appellant as the legal representative of Urmila Devi, given the appellant's status as the adopted son and the absence of any valid contestation against this status.
• Key evidence and findings: The appellant, Yashpal Jain, had been recognized as the legal representative in related proceedings, and the affidavits filed by him did not negate his claim. The High Court's decision to quash the trial court's order was based on a misinterpretation of these facts.
• Application of law to facts: The Court applied the definition of "legal representative" to determine that the appellant was rightfully the legal representative of Urmila Devi, as he was recognized in other legal proceedings and had not relinquished his claim.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The Court dismissed the respondents' argument that the appellant had admitted Manoj Kumar Jain as the legal representative, clarifying that the appellant's affidavits only acknowledged the existence of a will without conceding legal representative status.
• Conclusions: The Court set aside the High Court's order, reinstating the trial court's decision to substitute the appellant as the legal representative of Urmila Devi.

Issue 2: Addressing Judicial Delays

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court discussed various reports and recommendations aimed at reducing judicial delays, including the Law Commission reports and the Case Flow Management Rules.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and implementing reforms to expedite judicial processes, highlighting the negative impact of delays on the justice delivery system.
• Key evidence and findings: The Court cited data from the National Judicial Data Grid, illustrating the alarming backlog of cases and the stages where delays are most prevalent.
• Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principles of efficient case management and procedural compliance to propose solutions for reducing delays, including stricter adherence to procedural rules and enhanced monitoring by judicial committees.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The Court acknowledged the challenges posed by procedural delays but stressed the need for proactive measures to address these issues, urging all stakeholders to collaborate in this effort.
• Conclusions: The Court issued detailed directions to ensure timely execution of procedural steps, continuous monitoring of old cases, and effective implementation of case management rules.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Core principles established: The judgment reinforced the principle that legal representatives must be recognized based on their lawful status, as defined by the CPC, and emphasized the judiciary's duty to expedite proceedings and reduce delays.
• Final determinations on each issue: The Court set aside the High Court's order, reinstating the trial court's decision on substitution. It also issued comprehensive directions to address procedural delays, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to procedural timelines and enhanced case management.
• Verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "It is imperative to note that about 6 per cent of the population in India is affected by litigation, in such a scenario the courts would play an important role in the life of a nation governed by Rule of Law."