Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 178 (JHR)

Mohan Lal Gupta v. Bokaro Steel Ltd.

2005-02-24

M.Y.EQBAL

body2005
ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. The petitioner, by the instant writ petition has approached this Court with a serious grievance that because of the pendency of Money Suit No. 19 of 1978 in the Court of Subordinate Judge-I, Bokaro, Chas, the substantial amount attached in the said suit together with the security deposit has been withheld and the same has not been released. 2. It appears that in the aforementioned Money Suit No. 19 of 1978, an interlocutory order was passed by the Court below which was challenged before the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench in Misc. Appeal No. 103 of 1980(R). In the said appeal, Lower Court record was called for and the same was sent by the Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad to this Court on 29.7.1981. The aforesaid Misc. Appeal No. 103 of 1980(R) was disposed of on 30.8.1989 and the Lower Court record of Money Suit No. 19 of 1978 was sent to the Court of Subordinate Judge- II, Dhanbad in 1989 and the same was received at Dhanbad. On 2.1.1990, as per order of the District Judge, Dhanbad, the suit was withdrawn from the Court of Subordinate Judge-II, Dhanbad and transferred to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Chas for disposal. The supplementary record of Money Suit No. 19 of 1978 was received in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Chas, Bokaro. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that because of nonavailability of Lower Court record, the suit being Money Suit No. 19 of 1978 is pending in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Chas at Bokaro and the suit is not being disposed of. 4. When this writ petition was taken up on 17.2.2005, this Court called the Joint Registrar (Judicial) and directed him to report about the whereabouts of the record of the suit. The Joint Registrar submitted the following report on the same day :-- "It is submitted that M.A. No. 103 of 1980(R) in which the Lower Court Record of Money suit No. 19/1978 was called for from the Court of Sub-Judge-II, Dhanbad, had already been disposed of on 30.8.1989 by Honble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh, (now the Honble Judge, Supreme Court of India). Justice B.P. Singh, (now the Honble Judge, Supreme Court of India). It is submitted that the Lower Court Record of Money Suit No. 19/1978 alongwith the copy of the judgment dated 30.6.1989 passed in M.A. No. 103 of 1980(R) had already been sent to Sub- Judge-II, Dhanbad by Memo No. 4811 dated 19.11.1989 which can be seen from the office note given on the right margin of order- sheet of the concerned file. It is further submitted that from perusal of Civil Dispatch Volume-II, it appears that Lower Court Record of Money suit No. 19/1978 (called for in M.A. No. 103 of 1980(R) was sent to the Court of Sub-Judge-II, Dhanbad by special messenger. As directed by Your Lordship, the undersigned made a telephone conversation with the Registrar, Civil Court, Dhanbad and the District Judge, Bokaro as well as the Registrar, Civil Court, Bokaro. The learned District Judge, Bokaro has informed the undersigned that Lower Court record of Money Suit No. 19/1978 has not been received there although the part of the record is available in the Bokaro Judgeship. It is submitted that the Registrar, Civil Court, Dhanbad has informed telephonically today i.e. on 17.2.2005 that the Lower Court Record has been traced out in the Record Room in the Judgeship of Dhanbad and the same will be sent to the appropriate Court where the jurisdiction of subject matter lies, if the some order is unreceived in this regard. Under the circumstances, the matter is being placed before Your Lordship for necessary order and guideline in this regard. Submitted for Your Lordships kind consideration and necessary orders." 5. The petitioner has annexed the copies of the entire order sheets of Money Suit No. 19 of 1978. Since 1992, routine orders have been passed on each date- some of the orders are quoted herein below :-- "12.11.1992 to 12.2.1993 Awaiting further intimations from the Honble High Court (Dictated) Sub-Judge 3rd "12.2.1993 to 12.3.1993 Awaiting further intimation from the Honble High Court (Dictated) Sub-Judge 3rd "12.3.1993 to 12.4.1993 awaiting further intimations from the Honble High Court (Dictated) Sub-Judge 3rd "12.4.1993 Put up on 12.8.1993 awaiting further intimation from the Honble High Court (Dictated) 3rd Sub-Judge" 6. Similarly, upto 2004 the following orders were passed :-- 20.2.2004 No attendance has been filed on behalf of the parties. Original record has not yet been received, await. Put up on 17.3.2004 awaiting for same. Similarly, upto 2004 the following orders were passed :-- 20.2.2004 No attendance has been filed on behalf of the parties. Original record has not yet been received, await. Put up on 17.3.2004 awaiting for same. (Dictated) S.J. 1st 17.3.2004 No attendance has been filed on behalf of the parties. Original record has not yet been received, await. Put up on 19.4.2004 awaiting for same. (Dictated) S.J. 1st 19.4.2004 No step has been taken by the parties. P.O. has gone to Ranchi for training. Put up on 26.5.2004 awaiting for record. (Dictated) S.J. 1st I/c 26.5.2004 No step has been taken by the parties. Original record has not yet been received, await. Put up on 26.6.2004 awaiting for same. (Dictated) S.J. 1st 13.10.2004 No step has been taken by the parties today. Record has not yet been received. Await P.O. has gone for training. Put up on 10.12.2004 awaiting for same. (Dictated) S.J. 1st I/c 7. Surprisingly, neither the District Judge, Dhanbad and the Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad, where the suit was earlier pending, had taken any initiative to find out whether original record which was sent to this Court was received back, nor they have taken any step to find out the reason for the pendency of the suit. Similarly, after the case was transferred from Dhanbad to Bokaro at Chas in 1990, there also neither the District Judge nor the Subordinate Judge have taken any initiative for knowing the reason of pendency of the suit for the last 27 years. The District Judges were supposed to take up the matter relating to pendency of old cases in the Monitoring Cell Meeting and also the meeting of the District Judges with Judicial Officers of their respective districts. But it appears from the order-sheets that neither the District Judges of the Districts of Dhanbad and Bokaro, nor the Subordinate Judges before whom the suit was pending at the relevant time, showed their keen interest to find out the reason for pendency of the suit. 8. Justice delayed is justice denied. In large number of cases it has been found by this Court that many of the Judges of the Subordinate judiciary are not discharging their duties and are not speedily disposing of the cases. 8. Justice delayed is justice denied. In large number of cases it has been found by this Court that many of the Judges of the Subordinate judiciary are not discharging their duties and are not speedily disposing of the cases. During the last two years, this Court by organizing conferences and seminars and by giving training to the Officers of Subordinate judiciary through Judicial Academy of Jharkhand have been giving guidelines for disposal of old pending cases and also insisting upon to personally monitor every cases by passing orders on each date. But this Court has found that the Judges of Subordinate Judiciary are not observing and complying with the guidelines seriously. 9. The Judiciary is accountable to the public and the time has come when strong action must be taken against Judicial Officers who delay in disposing of cases, who do not sit in Court in time or rise before the closing time. Adverse remark should be made in character roll by the District Judges or the Inspecting Judges of High Court where an officer of Subordinate Judiciary is found not to abide by the directions made by the High Court. 10. On inquiry from the Joint Registrar (Judicial), it was reported that one Shri R.N. Mishra is posted as Subordinate Judge-I in the judgeship of Bokaro and he has been continuing on the said post from 19.9.2002. For the last 2-1/2 years, this Officer is passing the routine order as quoted hereinabove, without taking any pain to know the reason why the suit is pending since 1978 and why the Lower Court Record has not been sent by the High Court and if sent, why it is not being traced out. 11. The Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court is directed to hold an inquiry to find out as to who are the officers for whose negligence and inaction, the aforesaid suit remained pending since 1978. The report shall be submitted before the Standing Committee for taking appropriate decision as to why adverse entry be not made in the Character Roll of the concerned Officers in such a situation. 12. The District Judge, Dhanbad is directed to immediately transfer the record of Money Suit No. 19 of 1978 to the Court of District Judge, Bokaro for disposal of the aforesaid suit by the concerned Court.