K. J. VAIDYA, J. ( 1 ) ). This Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1976, is directed against the impugned order dated 4-8-92, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. D), Dwarka, below Application exh. 15 in Regular Civil Suit No. 33 of 1987. ( 2 ) ). TO state few relevant facts, Smt. Jyotsnaben Girdharlal, the respondentplantiff herein filed a suit, the same beinf Regular Civil Suit No. 33 of 1987 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. D. ). Dwarka on 23-3-1987 against the petitioner-defendant Jamnadas Bechardas for recovery of the possession of the suit premis on the ground of bonafide requirement and alleged breach of the terms and conditions of the tenacy. It appears that on summons being served, the defendant appeared and applied for time for filing a written statement on 21-8-1987 and the case accordingly was adjourned to 21-9-1987. On this date also, since no written statement was filed further time was asked for and granted and the case was adjourned to 6-10-1987. It appears that on 6-10-1987 also, no written statement was filed !! Thereafter, it appears that after three years ie. , on 3-8-1992, an application was once again made on behalf of the defendant to permit him to file a written statement as he could not file the same in time due to his old age and illness, etc. , and that he was prepared to pay the cost also ! This application was rejected by the learned Judge on 4-8-1992, giving rise to the present Civil Revision Application. ( 3 ) ). MR. M. R. Vyas, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner at the very outset when the matter was called out, was fair enough to submit that the petitioner was even prepared to pay the costs in the year 1992 and that today even, he is ready and willing to pay the costs and accordingly, he be allowed to file the written statement on any other further reasonable terms and conditions that this Court may impose. ( 4 ) ). HEARD Mr. A. M. Mehta, the learned advocate for the respondents. ( 5 ) ). ( 4 ) ). HEARD Mr. A. M. Mehta, the learned advocate for the respondents. ( 5 ) ). TAKING into consideration the fact in the first instance that the suit was filed on 23-3-1987, and secondly, it was a rent suit for the bonafide requirement under the Rent Act, the petitioner-defendant not filing the written statement for as many as five year till the time his request in the said regard came to be rejected by the impugned order, it must be said that there is indeed a gross delay in disposing off the suit proceedings ! On making inquiry with the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties regarding the said delay, this Court is informed that from the year 1987 till 1989 there was a strike by the learned advocates in the courts at Dwarka and Jam-Khambalia and therefore, the Suit could not be proceeded further in Dwarka Court. But this period of strike covered only the period of two years as there is nothing on the record to show as to why from the year 1989 to 1992, the defendant could not file the writen statement, of course at the later stage, he has tried to explain the delay on the ground of old-age and ill-health !! This Court is quite conscious of the fact that this Suit is filed by the landlord against the tenant, and is also equally conscious of the further fact fact that the tenant is having a shop in the suit premises at the monthly rent of Rs. 50. 00 per month. From the very fact that right from the date of filing of the suit ie. , 23-3-1987 till 4-8-1992 for about five and half years no written statement is filed, is indeed a very sad commentary firstly, reflecting upon the dilatory tactics of the defendant, secondly, apparently upon totally indiscreet and irresponsible manner of the learned advocte appearing for the defendant, thirdly, upon the strike calls given by the learned advocates during the period, and forthly, last but not the least upon the learned trial Judge who blissfully ignoring the mandate of Code, in Section 35-B and Order XVII pertaining to the cost and adjournment failed to control and regulate the suit proceedings by indiscreetly granting adjournments after adjournments to file the written statement on mere asking !! What a leizurely and irresponsible attitude by all concerned blissfully ignoring sufferings of the consumer of justice ! When a citizen feels aggrived by any wrong committed to him by the other party, to redress the same he approaches the court of justice with all hopes and expectation that justice would be done to him, and done to him as expeditiously as possible. He/she pays for the same in terms of money, time, convenience and what not !! and yet if justice remain a distant dream, not only the same is heart-breaking and exaspoerating but the same ultimately recoils and reacts upon the administration of justice which bit by bit may rob the administration of justice, the prizeless faith fo people in it ! ( 6 ) ). IN the present case, the suit was for bonafide requirement and vacant possession which should have meritted quite an early consideration ! If in such suits in a small court like Dwarka the proceedings are to be protracted indefinately for five years and that too for filing only a written statement, it is something not only difficult to understand, but calls for some searching interospection at the level of all concerned to find out as to indeed what has gone wrong with the Administration of Justice !! Meaning thereby its two wings viz. , the court and the lawyers !! In fact, the principal apparent causes for such delays amongst many others are two fold; firstly, the indiscreet adjournment, and secondly, unwarranted strikes, particularly continious One for days and months together ! 6. 1. Adjournments and Strikes : this vexed problem of the adjournment and strike is the root cause directly responsible not only for delaying the justice but also for creating a further problem of the litigation jam in the courts bringing the Administration of Justice in disreputs !! A time has come when both Bench and the Bar shall have to clearly understand its respective responsibility to the Society and the effective role to be played by them in seeing that the matters are disposed of as expeditiously as possible. One cannot expect the people to wait indefinitely gazing at the sky for the "justice" be done to them !! One cannot expect the people to wait indefinitely gazing at the sky for the "justice" be done to them !! Justice is not merely a right only of the citizen but the same as well enjoins upon the court the corresponding duty to deliver the same, and delivers it as expeditiously as possible. And please believe me, the best person to help expeditious disposal, to my mind, is the co-operation between and from the members of the Bar by trying to avoid the adjournments and strike, as far as possible and the next best are the Courts, which even incurring the risk of being little unpopular, that is to say, by refusing to grant adjournments and by imposing costs on the erring side, proceed ahead with the matter ! As a matter of fact, Section 35-B and the Order XVII of the Code pertaining to the "costs" and "adjournments" should daily, strictly guide by the courts whenever adjournments are sought, but unfortunately, it appears that the said provisions in some cases are just ignored as if the same do not exist at all in the statute !! The problem of adjournment is q;uite stricky, tricky and testing ! If adjournments are indiscreetly granted on mere asking, it indeed sadly reflec upon the quality and competence of the concerned Judge. When any prayer for a adjournment is made, the court is required to exercise its judicial discretion bearing in mind certain aspects, such as (i) nature of the suit ! (ii) at what stage it is !! (iii) whether the ground on which the adjournment is sought in the first instance factually correct, and in the second instance, whether it is sufficient to grant !! (iv) the past conduct of the parties to judge their attitude as to whether they are genuinely interested in deciding the case at the earliest or are just delaying the justice; (v) whether the party having already secured ad-interim relief wants to enjoy the same for a longer period by way of adjournments ! (iv) the past conduct of the parties to judge their attitude as to whether they are genuinely interested in deciding the case at the earliest or are just delaying the justice; (v) whether the party having already secured ad-interim relief wants to enjoy the same for a longer period by way of adjournments ! (vi) witnesses if present before the court, their corresponding hardships and inconveniences (a special costs to be awarded to them); (vii) ordinarily, moment the suit crosses six months limit after the institution and there is no stay of proceedings operating, by an order from higher Court, to get adjournment should become difficult rather impossible task unless of course some genuine, compelling, good case for the same is made out; (viii) in a given case, despite the fact that the learned advocates appearing for the other side do not object to the adjournment, then even, that cannot be a ground to mechanically grant the same, (ix) whenever the court award cost under section 35-B or relevant provision under Order XVII, the amount of cost be directed to be deposited in the court immediately to be withdrawn by the rival party or a witness, in whosoevers favour the cost award is made. Oral statement of the learned advocate appearing for the party that he has recieved the cost amount is not sufficient ! (x) In substance, whenever an application for adjournment is filed, every court by having a look at the Rojkam proceedings must find out defeat the earlier disposal of the case with some oblique motive ! Once it is found out that the ground on which the adjournment is sought for is not genuine and bonafide, the same should not be granted. The courts must now that by granting indiscreet adjournments, they are accountable to the people, the higher Courts, to the Constitution of India and their own conscience !! 6. 2strikes : that takes us further to another nagging problem viz. , the problem of strikes. With utmost respect to the learned advocates, may I say that all of us, first of all, owe duty to the litigants for whom the courts of law exist and without whom there is no career or prospect even both for the professional advocates and the courts. This is the first and foremost thing to be borne in mind for ever ! This is the first and foremost thing to be borne in mind for ever ! If we become just conscious of this glaring aspecrt, it can be easily realised by one and all the indiscreet strikes, in some cases continuously for number of days, to say the least, are not in good taste, spirit or enhance the image of the noble profession of advocates. In fact, having regard to the promise given under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the speedy justice is a fundamental right of the people and whosoever comes in the way, to that extent, in a way not only belies that great promise of the Constitution of India, but to put it more positively, obstructs and violates the same !! NO ONE can be permitted to go to the said extent by resorting to frequent and indiscreet strike calls impinging upon peoples fundamental right to get speedy justice ! Whatever be the problem for the members of the Bar, the same has got to be solved out by the negotiations across the table, in case, if for whatever reasons it fail, the alternative recourse is the legal action and judicial redressal of the grievances wherever possible ! But the strike can never, never be an answer ! The question is can the litigants and administration of justice be taken in ban still certain demands are satisfied ? The further question is can the tactics and practise which are carried on in the International Political World for realizing certain demands worth emulating by any standard of culture and that too by the members of the gentlemen profession viz. , learned Advocates ! Under the circumstances, it is duty of both the learned advocates and the Courts to see that the Constitution is upheld in its highest esteem and see that its promise of speedy justice reaches to each and every litigant. The esteem and image of Administration of Justice depends not only as much upon the quality of the learned Judge as much as it depends upon the learned members of the Bar also !! In order to see that it remains as golden and shining and unsullied as anybody would wish and expect, it is duty of both Bench and the Bar to do their utmost to keep this image aloft and glorious flag of "administration of Justice" fluttering for ever. In order to see that it remains as golden and shining and unsullied as anybody would wish and expect, it is duty of both Bench and the Bar to do their utmost to keep this image aloft and glorious flag of "administration of Justice" fluttering for ever. If this is not done, please remember that bleak day is not far away when the people starting losing faith in the Administration of Justice instead of going to the court of law and for that purpose to the learned advocates will be constrained to resort to comparatively cheaper and expeditious extra legal remedy available by engaging not the advocates but engaging the bullies, which according to them, is far more easy, cheap, convient and expedient way to redress the injustice felt by them. Please mind, if reports are correct, this extra legal remedy has started gaining momentum in Society, more particularly, in cases of disputes between the landlords and the tenant, and between unfair builders and the person refusing to vacate the premises where new building complex is to be constructed, recovery of money and what not !! Are we to shut our eyes to this happening, social setting scenerio around us if the reporting is correct ? Have we ever thought of the plight of the middle-class persons who having once and for all invested whatever little savings he had in life in constructing a small house rented out and he wants back the same for personal use and occupation is in turn refused by the tenant, and when the case is filed in the court, the same merrily lingers on and on right upto the Apex Court for years and years together !! same is the case when persons claim compensation, back wages, maintenance, and where the question involved is of the public revenue and stay is granted !! Similarly, what about those accused persons languishing in jail as an under-trial prisoners or in the matter of preventive detention when they are taken in jail without any trial !! If such persons languishing in jail dying of hunger and thirst for speedy justice out of sheer exasperation arising out of delay in courts, forms union of litigants demanding speedy justice ? If such persons languishing in jail dying of hunger and thirst for speedy justice out of sheer exasperation arising out of delay in courts, forms union of litigants demanding speedy justice ? What ought we know that their frustration crossing the limits resorting to something unthinkable and under that situation where all of us, that is to say, courts and advocates will be going? This is how all of us are required to look at the problem of adjournments and strikes, which should not frustrate the litigants for whom we all exist. Let us forget past, errors are human. But having become conscious of our duties to the society let us resolve a fresh to eschew as far as possible practice of indiscreet adjournments and strike !! Please do not misunderstand that this heart burn expression are by way of any accusation and condemnation either of the learned advocates of the courts. No certainly not. Rather they are made with all hopes and trust in good sporting spirit of the learned advocates and courts ready to understands the problem of delay in justice and take up the challenge in right earnest and proper spirit. ( 7 ) ). IN fact, quite worried and anxious to deal with the problem of delay indisposal and resultant increase of the backlog of cases, Parliament enacted (new) Civil Procedure Code, 1976, and in its wisdom has introduced very many radical provisions therein such as Section 35-B pertaining to the cost for causing delay and Order XVII pertaining to the adjournment. The said provisions reads as under :- 6. 1 Section 35-B (1) If, on any date fixed for the hearing of a suit or for taking any step therein, a party to the suit- (a) fails to take the step which he was required by or under this Code to take on that date, or (b) Obtain an adjournment for taking such step or for producing evidence or on any other ground. The Court may, for reasons to be recorded, make an order requiring such party to pay to the other party such costs as would, in the opinion of the Court, be reasonably sufficient to reimburse the other party in respect of the expenses incurred by him in attending the court on that date, and payment of such costs, on the date next following the date of such order, shall be a condition precedent to the further prosecution of (a) the suit by the plaintiff, where the plaintiff was ordered to pay such costs, (b) the defence by the defendant, where the defendant was ordered to pay such costs. 6. 2. Order XVII 1. The Court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit. Costs to adjournment (2) In every such case the court shall fix a day for the further hearing of the suit, and may make such order as it thinks fit with respect to the costs occasioned by the adjournment : provided that (a)when the hearing of the suit has commenced, it shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the court finds that, for the exceptional reasons to be recorded by it, the adjournment of the hearing beyond the following day is necessary. (b)No adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party, (c)The fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another court, shall not be a ground for adjournment, (d)Where the illness of a pleader or his inability to conduct the case for any reason, other than his being engaged in another court, is put forward as a ground for adjournment, the court shall not grant the adjournment unless it is satisfied that the party applying for adjournment could not have engaged another pleader in time, (e)Where a witness is present in court but a party or his pleader is not present or the party or his pleader, though present in court, is not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness, the court may, if it thinks fit, record the statement of the witness and pass such orders as it thinks fit dispensing with the examination-in-chief or cross-examination of the witness, as the case may be, by the party or his pleader not present or not ready as aforesaid ). Procedure if parties fail to appear on day fixed. 2. Where, on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the parties or any of them fail to appear, the Court may proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed in that behalf by Order IX or make such other order as it thinks fit. [explanation Where the evidence or a substantial portion of the evidence of any parts has already been recorded and such party fails to appear on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the Court may, in its discretion, proceed with the case as if such party were present]. Court may proceed notwithstanding either party fails to produce evidence, etc. 3. Where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce his evidence, or to cause the attendance of his witnesses, or to perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed the court may, notwithstanding such default (a)if the parties are present, proceed to decide the suit forthwith; or (b) if the parties are, or any of them is, absent, proceed under rule 2. ( 8 ) ). ( 8 ) ). It appears that by and large some of the courts are totally oblivious to the existence of the aforesaid provisions in the Code, and it is perhaps because of this only that the suits before the trial court just drags on and on and on bitterly frustrating the consumers of justice. It is indeed not difficult to understand that some of the learned advocates appearing for the defendand taking saddist delight are always interested in protracting the proceedings on one ground or the other by seeking adjournments !! This dubious game though not pardonable is quite understandable ! But it is indeed too difficult to understand how the concerned court can be permitted to be oblivious to its duty of discharging the justice as expeditiously as possible more particularly when Section 35-B of the Code and Order XVII Rule enjoin upon the Court to award the costs vesting all controlling power to keep proceedings before it in time bounds !! Nodoubts, this Section does vest the discretion, but this discretion is always required to be exercised judiciously and particularly in a number of cases like the present one where the defendants do not care to file written statement for as many as five years, there can be which better and proper case to award the costs than the present one ? What has happened in this case in Dwarka court is not something which is confined and peculiar to Dwarka only. In fact, this Court has come across several such cases where the virus of delay and protracted proceedings has spread in many other courts also exhibiting lack of awareness or ignorance or lack of will and judicial assertion on the part of the concerned Judge forgetting altogether that there are some provisions like section 35-B and Order XVII which are reuired to be and accordingly must be resorted to !! If section 35-B and Order XVII are ordinarily resorted to in each and every case, by the courts as enjoined upon by the parliament, then the problem of delay in disposal of cases can certainly be brought under control to the considerable extent and it is here that the image and competency of the learned Judge comes into picture ! If section 35-B and Order XVII are ordinarily resorted to in each and every case, by the courts as enjoined upon by the parliament, then the problem of delay in disposal of cases can certainly be brought under control to the considerable extent and it is here that the image and competency of the learned Judge comes into picture ! If the learned Judge does not resort to section 35-B or of Order XVII and allows the proceedings to drag on and on resulting into frustration to the parties, such gross deriliction of duty should come in way of considering their future service prospects in the matter of salary increase, promotion and any other incidental service benefits etc. , and whenever this court and for that purpose even District and Session Court has no occasion to come across, such dereliction of duty by the trial court not exercising its discretion under section 35-B, and Order XVII the same should be immediately taken serious note of it and be kept in the confidential (Service) file of the concerned learned Judge for appropriate action at appropriate time. The reason is because of the spineless and illegal manner of conducting the proceedings before the Court contrary to the provisions made in amended Code, the faith of the people in the Administration of Justice cannot be permitted to be shaken and lost, and the people be constrained to resort to take law in their own hands !! This laxity in judicial character has all the potentialities to make the mockery of the "rule of Law" and the promise of "speedy justice" in Article 21 of the Constitution !! To avoid the anarchy by anti-social, entering and engulfing the Society, firstly, the Courts will have to gird up its loins to discourage indiscreet adjournments and secondly, the learned advocates in their turn shall have to abstain from taking indiscreet adjournments and/or to resort to strikes !! If both the trial Court and the learned advocates in their turn fail to urgently understand their repective roles and duties, responsibilities to the society in the matter of speedy justice, that would be indirectly giving walk-over and handing over the administration of justice and noble lucrative legal profession to the anti-socials as crusader for speedy rederessal of the grievance !! Can such a thing, situation be permitted to happen ? From where do we want Justice ?? Can such a thing, situation be permitted to happen ? From where do we want Justice ?? From the Court or from the bullies in the street ? The answer to this question lies only with the courts and advocates urgently understanding the gravity and seriousness of the problem facing us and realizing their duties and accordingly activating themselves to do all their best in direction of the "speedy justice". This understanding is the only way in which the irresponsible way in which the cases are draggeed on from month to month and from year to year can be controlled to the satisfaction of the litigating public for which both the Administration of Justice and the members of bar exist and regarding which the Constitution has given promise to the people under Article 21 of the Constitution regarding "speedy justice". By this judgment, accordingly, this Court would be earnestly requesting all the concerned learned advocates of the State, and the Courts as well, to read the writing on the wall in time, to see that they help each other in discharging respective duties in the light of Section 35-B, Order-XVII of the Code, and Article 21 of the Constitution of India in proper spirit. Neither the adjournments nor the strike-calls can be permitted to obstruct the course of speedy justice. Both the Courts as shall as the learned advocate well have to understand one thing that they are the trustees of the Constitutional promises and faith of the people in the Administration of Justice and that both of them exist for the beneficiaries viz. , People. Accordingly, let us not conduct in a way where people are constrained to abandon traditional choice of going to courts and panchas and in sheer exasperation look at the anti-social as a saviour of their causes and grivances ! It is once again hoped that the heart-burn which has been expressed here, on the pages of this judgment, will reach the concerned courts as well as the learned advocates and will be received in proper spirit in the interest of justice. ( 9 ) ). Something further more ! It is once again hoped that the heart-burn which has been expressed here, on the pages of this judgment, will reach the concerned courts as well as the learned advocates and will be received in proper spirit in the interest of justice. ( 9 ) ). Something further more ! The litigants many of whom being quite illiterate, ignorant or in any other cases, though educated but actually not knowing the provisions of Section 35-B and Order XVII of the Code, and thereby what are the likely consequences of seeking indiscreet adjournments and delaying the cases ! They just entrust the matter to the learned advocate. Thats all. Therefore, if the litigating public is made conscious of their ultimate financial liability under Section 35-B and Order XVII of the Code by way of paying cost for delaying disposal of the case, then this Court is more than sure that in all probability it will reduce the frequencies of the frequent adjournments before the Court because than they know what are the consequent financial implications of asking for indiscreet adjournments !! Ordinarily, the citizen do not know what is Sec. 35-B and Order XVII in the Code, and accordingly. If they are made conscious of it, perhaps, they may respond in better way in co-operating with the Court proceedings whereby the suits can be disposed of quite early. Therefore, in order to make them conscious about their liability to pay the costs, whenever after registration of the plaint the summons are issued to the defendant, alongwith the summons, this particular Section 35-B of the Code should also be produced in extenso in Gujarati language, and this Court is sure that the result of this is bound to expedite the suit proceedings by parties themselves, even prevailing upon their learned advocates not to seek the adjournment and not even on the ground of strike. Accordingly, all the civil courts of the State are hereby directed to see that while issuing the summons, the provision of the costs for causing delay as provided in Sec. 35-B of the Code be made known to the parties, as early as possible. The suitable performa on the basis of this information be evolved by the legal department and printed form accordingly be published and supplied at the earliest, preferably on or before 31st March, 1996. ( 10 ) ). The suitable performa on the basis of this information be evolved by the legal department and printed form accordingly be published and supplied at the earliest, preferably on or before 31st March, 1996. ( 10 ) ). Turning to the facts of the present case, there is undoubtedly a gross delay of five years in filing the written statement, which is difficult to understand. However, bearing in mind the fact that since this is the first case before this Court of the type, and further still, strike by the learned advocates have also contributed to delay instead of awarding little heavy exemplary cost which may make the defendant feel the real pinch of it, he is directed to pay the cost of Rs. 1,111. 00 only to the plaintiffs, and on depositing the said amount only, in the trial court on or before 31st March, 1995, he will be permitted to file the written statement and in the event of his failing to do so, the Law shall take its own course. On the cost amount so deposited, the Court shall inform the party in whose favour the cost is awarded to withdraw the same. Taking into consideration the fact that the suit is of the year 1987, the trial Court is directed to decide the same on or before 31st July, 1995, by not indiscreetly adjourning the case and also bearing in mind the provision contained in Sec. 35-B and Order XVII of the Code. ( 11 ) ). In the result, this Revision Application is allowed. The petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,111. 00 (Rupees one thousand one hundred eleven only) before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. D) Dwarka on or before 31st March, 1995, alongwith the written statement which he intends to file. No more time would be given to the petitioner defendant for complying with this order, unless some special ground is made out. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. On the amount of Rs. 1,111. 00 being so deposited the plaintiff would be at liberty to personally withdraw the same. .