9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns, the amendments which were sought to be made by the aforesaid Amendment Acts, have been challenged, but we do not find that the said provisions are in any way ultra vires the Constitution. Neither Mr. Vaidyanathan nor any other learned counsel made any submissions to the effect that any of the amendments made were without legislative competence or violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution. We have also gone through the provisions by which amendments have been made and do not find any constitutional infirmity in the same. 4. Mr. Vaidyanathan, however, drew our attention to some of the amendments which have been made with a view to show that there may be some practical difficulties in implementing the same. He also contended that some clarifications may be necessary. We shall deal with the said provisions presently. 5. Amendment has been made to Section 27 dealing with summons to the defendant which, after the amendment, reads as follows: Summons to Defendants - Where a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may be issued to the defended to appear and answer the claim and may be served in the manner prescribed on such day not beyond thirty days from the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l apply as if the proceedings for arbitration or conciliation were referred for settlement under the provisions of that Act; (b) to Lok Adalat, the Court shall refer the same to the Lok Adalat in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) and all other provisions of that Act shall apply in respect of the dispute so referred to the Lok Adalat. (c) for judicial settlement, the Court shall refer the same to a suitable institution or person and such institution or persona shall be deemed to be a Lok Adalat and all the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987) shall apply as if the dispute were referred to a Lok Adalat under the provisions of that Act; (d) for mediation, the Court shall effect a compromise between the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed. 8. it is quite obvious that the reason why Section 89 has been inserted to try and see that all the cases which are filed in court need not necessarily be decided by the court itself. Keeping in mind the laws delay and the limited number of Judges which are available, it has now become imperative t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the minds of the litigating public or the lawyer's clarified. As suggested, the Committee will consist of a Judge sitting or retired nominated by the Chief Justice of India and the other members of the Committee will be Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate, Mr. Arun Jaitley, Senior Advocate, Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Senior Advocate and Mr. D.V. Subba Rao, Chairman, Bar Council of India. This Committee will be at liberty to co-opt any other member and to take assistance of any member of the Bar or Association. This Committee may consider devising a model case management formula as well as rules and regulations which should be followed while taking recourse to the ADR referred to in Section 89. The model rules, with or without modification, which are formulated may be adopted by the High Courts concerned for giving effect to Section 89(2)(d). 12. Mr. Vaidyanathan drew our attention to Section 100A which deals with intra-court appeals. This Section reads as follows: 100A. No further appeal in certain cases--Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any other instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g done the court will have the liberty or the right to reject the plaint. 17. In Order 18, Rule 4 has been substituted and Sub-rule (1) provides that in every case examination-in-chief of the witnesses shall be on affidavits and copies thereof shall be supplied to the opposite parties by the party who calls them for evidence. It was contended by Mr. Vaidyanathan that it may not be possible for the party calling the witness to compel the witness to file an affidavit. It often happens that the witness may not be under the control of the party who wants to rely upon his evidence and that witness may have to be summoned through court. Order 16 Rule 1 provides for list of witnesses being filed and summons being issued to them for being present in court for recording their evidence. Rule 1A, on the other hand, refers to production of witnesses without summons where any party to the suit may bring any witness to give any evidence or to produce documents. Reading the provisions of Order 16 and Order 18 together it appears to us that Order 18 Rule 4(1) will necessarily apply to a case contemplated by Order 16 Rule 1A, i.e. where any party to a suit, without applying for summoning under R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so as to obviate any controversy at a later stage. 20. Mr. Vaidyanathan drew our attention to the fact that by amendment in 1976, Rule 17A had been inserted in Order which gave an opportunity to a party to adduce additional evidence under the circumstances mentioned therein. He submitted that by the Amendment Act of 2002, this sub-rule has been deleted which may cause hardship to the litigants. 21. We find that in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a provision similar to Rule 17A did not exist. This provision, as already noted, was inserted in 1976. The effect of the deletion of this provision in 2002 is merely to restore status quo ante, that is to say, the position which existed prior to the insertion of Rule 17A in 1976. The remedy, if any, that was available to a litigant with regard to adducing additional evidence prior to 1976 would be available now and no more. It is quite evident that Rule 17A has been deleted with a view that unnecessarily applications are not filed primarily with a view to prolong the trial. 22. Lastly, Mr. Vaidyanathan drew our attention to Rule 9 which was inserted in Order 41 which reads as follows: 9. Registry of memorandum of appeal--(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
