Suit – Suit was instituted by the original plaintiff in 1982 to declare the sale deed executed by first defendant in favour of defendants No.4 to
32 in respect of the suit properties, to be null and void and for a decree of possession of the suit properties – Proceedings protracted from 1982 till her demise in 2007 whereafter, several orders were passed by the courts below, both in original jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction – Impugned order resulted in rejection of the application filed by the appellant to be brought on record as legal representative of the deceased plaintiff – Sustainability:
Held: Not sustainable – On facts, respondents herein themselves having filed an application in WP (M/S) No.342 of 2005 for bringing the present appellant as the plaintiff’s legal representative in the aforesaid writ petition and prosecuted the same, reflects that they were in the acquaintance of the fact of the present appellant being the legal representative of deceased plaintiff but yet are attempting to contend that ‘MKJ’ is to be brought on record as legal representative of the deceased plaintiff – Further, the defendants cannot be heard to contend that appellant herein had filed two affidavits (Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-7) whereunder he had admitted ‘MKJ’ as the legal representative of deceased plaintiff and as such he cannot turn around to assert himself to be the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff, as the affidavits filed by the appellant does not even remotely suggest or indicate that he had admitted ‘MKJ’ being the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff – On the other hand, said affidavits clearly indicate that he had only affirmed and reiterated the fact that he is a signatory to the Will and nothing more or nothing less – Furthermore, ‘MKJ’ himself had filed an application, accompanied by affidavit before the Revisional Court in Civil Revision No.2 of 2010, stating that he would not press the application filed by him for substitution – 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 plaintiff – Impugned order set aside – Order dated 09.05.2012 passed by the Trial Court as affirmed in Civil Revision No.4 of 2012 vide order dated 13.12.2012, affirmed – Further directions issued – Judicial Delay . [Paras 12, 14-16]
Directions by Supreme Court – Judicial Delay – Certain litigations initiated more than 50 years back still pending – Data from National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), three oldest civil and criminal cases noted – Factors behind Judicial Delays, enumerated – Steps taken to curb Judicial delay, historical outlook – Reasons for delay in civil trial – Discussed – Case Flow Management System Rules – Chief Justices of High Courts where said Rules are yet to be framed, requested to take immediate steps to formulate such rules – State-wise pendency of cases before the respective High Courts and overall Civil Courts as on 16.10.2023; stage-wise pendency also stated – Requests made to the Chief Justices of the High Courts – Directions issued to the trial courts to ensure that speedy justice is delivered – Further directions for implementation of the said directions to be issued from time to time, if necessary – Secretary General to circulate the copy of this judgment to the Registrar General of all the High Courts for being placed before the respective Chief Justices for consideration and suitable steps being taken. [Paras 18, 19, 21-26, 27-31, 33, 34]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
All India Judges Association v. Union of India [2002] 2 SCR 712 : (2002) 4 SCC 247; T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal & Another AIR (1977)
4 SCC 467; Kailash v. Nanku [2005] 3 SCR 289 : (2005) 4 SCC 480; Serum Advocates Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs Union of India, [2005] 1 Suppl. SCR 929 : AIR 2005 SC 3353; Bharat Kalra v. Raj Kishan Chhabra (2022) SCC OnLine SC 613; Salem Bar Association v. Union of India [2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 353 : AIR 2003 SC 189 – referred to.
Shoraj Singh v. Charan Singh (2018) SCC OnLine All 6613; M. Mahalingam v. Shashikala ILR Karnataka 4055 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.