Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2005 DIGILAW 1634 (SC)

Rabi Ranjan Gupta (D) By His Lrs. v. Jayati Roy

2005-10-06

ALTAMAS KABIR, ASHOK BHAN

body2005
ORDER : In the present case, the appeal in the High Court was heard by a Single Judge of the High Court on five days i.e. On 9.3.1998, 26.3.1998, 2.4.1998, 6.4.1998 and 13.4.1998 but the judgment was delivered on 23.5.2001 i.e. after a delay of more than three years. 2. This Court has repeatedly held that the inordinate delay in delivering the judgment by itself is a ground to set aside the judgment and remit the case back to the High Court for a fresh decision. 3. In Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani and Others v. HPA International & Ors. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 13 , this Court observed that delay of five years in delivering the judgment after the conclusion of the hearing by itself, was sufficient to set aside the judgment under appeal. On this short ground, the appeal was allowed and the case was remitted back to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. 4. Similarly, in P.H. Pandian v. P. Veldurai & Anr. reported in JT (2001)9 SC 10, this Court observed in para 6 as follows ; "The delay of 22 months, after arguments were concluded and judgment reserved to be pronounced, lends force to the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant that the possibility that arguments raised at the bar may not have been reflected upon or appreciated by the learned designated Judge at the time of dictating the judgment." 5. In Anil Rai v. State of Bihar reported in (2001) 7 SCC 318 , this Court while depricating the practice of delivering the judgments after a considerable delay, laid down the following guidelines : "(i) The Chief Justices of the High Courts may issue appropriate directions to the Registry that in a case where the judgment is reserved and is pronounced later, a column be added in the judgment where, on the first page, after the cause-title, date of reserving the judgment and date of pronouncing it be separately mentioned by the Court Officer concerned. (ii) That Chief Justices of the High Courts, on their administrative side, should direct the Court Officers/Readers of the various Benches in the High Courts to furnish every month the list of cases in the matters where the judgments reserved are not pronounced within the period of that month. (ii) That Chief Justices of the High Courts, on their administrative side, should direct the Court Officers/Readers of the various Benches in the High Courts to furnish every month the list of cases in the matters where the judgments reserved are not pronounced within the period of that month. (iii) On noticing that after conclusion of the arguments the Judgment is not pronounced within a period of two months the Chief Justice concerned shall draw the attention of the Bench concerned to the pending matter. The Chief Justice may also see the desirability of circulating the statement of such cases in which the judgments have not been pronounced within a period of six weeks from the date of conclusion of the arguments amongst the Judges of the High Court for their information. Such communication be conveyed as confidential and in a sealed cover. (iv) Where a judgment is not pronounced within three months from the date of reserving judgment, any of the parties in the case is permitted to file an application in the High Court with a prayer for early judgment. Such application, as and when filed, shall be listed before the Bench concerned within two days excluding the intervening holidays. (v) If the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within a period of six months, any of the parties of the said lis shall be entitled to move an application before the Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to withdraw the said case and to make it over to any other Bench for fresh arguments. It is open to the Chief Justice to grant the said prayer or to pass any other order as he deems fit in the circumstances." 6. In Kanhaiyala & Ors. v. Anup Kumar & Ors. reported in (2003) 1 SCC 430 , this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court only because there was a delay in delivering the judgment. 7. In Kanhaiyala & Ors. v. Anup Kumar & Ors. reported in (2003) 1 SCC 430 , this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court only because there was a delay in delivering the judgment. 7. Keeping in view that there was a delay of more than three years in delivering the Judgment and following the dictum of this Court in Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani and Others's case (supra) and the subsequent judgments while reiterating the guidelines set forth in Anil Rai's case (supra), we accept this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment without going into the merits of the dispute and remit the case back to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. 8. Since the eviction suit was filed in the year 1975 and nearly thirty years have already elapsed from the filing of the suit, we would request the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court to list this matter immediately for a fresh disposal. We would also, request the Hon'ble Judge before whom the case is listed to dispose of the case at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months, if possible. 9. Counsel for the respondents has filed I.A. No. 4 of 2005 for-appropriate directions with regard to payment of mesne profits. Respondents are put at liberty to move a similar application in the High Court and if such an application is filed the same be decided on its own merits either separately or with the main matter. 10. Registry is directed to remit the record to the High Court forthwith. Registrar General is directed to write a letter to the Registrar General of the High Court for placing the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for listing of this case. 11. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. Appeal is allowed.