2020 (8) TMI 255 - HC - Indian Laws

Direction for early disposal of application - grievance of the Petitioner in this petition is that despite the matter being reserved for orders, no orders were pronounced in the Order XII Rule 6 application - HELD THAT - As per the settled law, orders which are reserved have to be pronounced within two months. If the same are not pronounced for three months, the litigant is entitled to approach the High Court. The same is clear from a reading of the Supreme Court's judgment in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar 2001 7 SCC 318 2001 (8) TMI 1330 - SUPREME COURT Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in pronouncement of orders in a civil suit application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC during the COVID-19 lockdown.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a suit for injunction against his sons concerning a property in Delhi. An application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC was heard on 18th February, 2020, but the orders were not pronounced despite being reserved. The petitioner sought directions for early disposal of the application due to the delay caused by the lockdown. The court emphasized that lockdown should not hinder the pronouncement of orders once reserved, as no further hearings are required. Reference was made to previous judgments emphasizing timely pronouncement of orders, with guidelines provided by the Supreme Court. The court highlighted that orders reserved must be pronounced within two months, as per established legal principles.

The court cited the Civil Procedure Code and Supreme Court judgments to stress the importance of timely pronouncement of orders. Delays of over a year in pronouncing orders were deemed unjustified, as they burden the system and litigants. The court issued directions to ensure timely pronouncement of orders, including reflecting the status of cases on the order sheet and specifying the date of reserving and pronouncing orders. The judgment also addressed the impact of lockdown on court proceedings and the need to avoid repeated adjournments for pronouncement of judgments.

In another case, a petitioner sought modification of an office order suspending court functions due to the lockdown, which had delayed the pronouncement of a judgment in a divorce petition since 2015. The court clarified that the office order should not prevent the Trial Court from pronouncing the final judgment. The petitioner's petition was disposed of after the Trial Court pronounced the order, emphasizing that lockdown should not impede the pronouncement of judgments once arguments are heard and orders are reserved.

The court's decision highlighted the importance of timely pronouncement of orders, especially during exceptional circumstances like the COVID-19 lockdown. The judgments cited established legal principles and guidelines to ensure that reserved orders are pronounced within a reasonable timeframe. The court's directions aimed to prevent undue delays in pronouncing orders and emphasized the need for efficient judicial processes, even during challenging situations like a national lockdown.