Judgment :- This matter had come up for orders before this court on 13-8-2010, on the note of the registry, reading as under: 2-8-10 Sri P G Mogali, Advocate for appellant Sri Vighneswhar S Shastry for R-1 & R2 Letter for extension of time Letter received from Dist and Sessions Judge, Haveri No 476/10 dated 27-7-2010 stating that this Hon’ble Court in OS No 89/82 request to grant the further extension of six months or one year to dispose of the above said suit for the reasons stated there letter [sic]. The appeal is allowed before the Hon’ble Mr DVSKJ on 12-12-08 [sic]. Post RSA a/w letter for orders before Hon’ble Mr DVSKJ Reg: Extension of time in OS No 89/82. purporting to be for passing orders regarding the letter and this court had passed the following order on 13-8-2010: This is a disposed of matter, disposed of in terms of judgment dated 12-2-2008, allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the trial court, but is again listed before the court today on the letter dated 20-7-2010, addressed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur, which has been forwarded by the district court, Haveri on 27-7-2010, seeking for further extension of time to dispose of OS No 89 of 2002 on the file of that court, by a further period of six months or one year. It is to be noticed that this court had already granted two extensions i.e. firstly in terms of order dated 24-3-2009, extending the time of disposal of the suit for a further period of six months from that date and secondly in terms of order dated 13-11-2009, extending the time for such purpose for a further period of six months. It has become a habit for judges in the trial courts to keep on sending such letters to High court to seeking for extension of time as a matter of routine and even after stern orders are passed by this court cautioning them against such a casual approach and attitude of judges in the trial courts but unfortunately has not made any impact on the judges to evince commensurate urgency in the matter and to make an earnest attempt to dispose of the matter as per the directions. This court on the last occasion while passing orders on 13-11-2009, and extending time for a further period, has observed as under: In the circumstances explained in the letter dated 6-10-2009, addressed to the Registrar General of this court and originating from the learned Civil Judge (Jr Dn) and JMFC, Hirekerur and though such repeated requests does not reflect well on the efficiency and the level of performance of the judicial officer, nevertheless as a final extension, the time for disposal of the suit is extended by further six months in terms of request made in the letter dated 6-10-2009 Notwithstanding, yet another letter is addressed after the expiry of the extended period. It definitely reflects on the performance levels of the learned judge of the trial court. It is also not known since when the present judge is looking after this suit. It is clarified hereby that stipulation of time limit is only an order in terrorem to impress upon judges in the trial courts to dispose of the matter expeditiously, particularly having regard to the fact that by the time the matter gets remanded from the High court, considerable time will have lapsed since the institution of the suit before the trial court and the litigation would have grown in age. In the instant case, I notice that the suit is of the year 1982 and is still to see the light of the day, notwithstanding the caution and warning by this court. Whether time is extended or not, the learned judge of the trial court is bound to dispose of the suit and non-extension of time while does not amount to denuding the court of jurisdiction, repeated requests for extension would definitely reflect upon the performance of the judge, that too even the performance of the judge, that too even after time is extended on a couple of occasions, as in this case but the order extending the time for disposal does not absolve the learned judge of the trial court, from the blame of inefficiency. If the two extensions granted by this court and the orders passed had no effect, and the learned judge of the trial court has nonchalantly come up with another letter seeking further extension of time, then there is something radically wrong in the training methods of judicial officers. If the two extensions granted by this court and the orders passed had no effect, and the learned judge of the trial court has nonchalantly come up with another letter seeking further extension of time, then there is something radically wrong in the training methods of judicial officers. The letter does not even specify any worth while justifiable reason for seeking further extension of time. The letter does not give any worthwhile or genuine reasons, but only indicates non-service of notice on persons sought to be impleaded as defendant No 9(a) etc., and amongst them, non-service of one of the legal representatives of defendant No 9 is sought to be reason for non-disposal of the suit. Another reason offered in the letter is that the matter was being tossed between Lok Adalat and the court without any productivity. While Lok Adalat being a definite purpose to serve in the scheme of a conciliatory disposal of the matter, the present matter appears to be only a source for further delay of the already delayed case. In the circumstances, the request in the letter is rejected. While our judicial methods and judicial systems definitely warrant reforms and we have to come with innovative methods for the expeditions disposal of cases and prompt delivery of justice to the litigants, inevitably it is not happening in the present scheme of things and calls for a rethinking into the matter and such rethinking should be informed by realities that are existing in our society rather than being guided by the developments in other parts of the world, either is it prevails in the English legal system or as in the American legal system. Our society and our country are definitely different from the western civilization and what methods are adopted in the western countries or in the developed countries cannot be a model for us and may not be productive for solving our problems. It is high time we realize our country has its own unique traditions and culture and civilization flourished in this part of the world more than 5000 years ago. It is a very sad state of affairs that this country is not a role model for the rest of the world and instead, we are trying to ape methods ill-suited to our society and systems though such methods might have been successful in other parts of the world. It is a very sad state of affairs that this country is not a role model for the rest of the world and instead, we are trying to ape methods ill-suited to our society and systems though such methods might have been successful in other parts of the world. To simply graft such methods to our system and society, become experiments which may not be very productive and it is high time our laws are suitably modified to meet the requirements of our people to solve our problems which more localized and not global and to find solution within our means and resources. It is once again impressed that the learned judge of the trial court should strive and produce some efficiency to dispose of the suit expeditiously as is expected and as already ordered by this court. However, the request in the letter is rejected. Place a copy of this order before the Hon’ble Judge having jurisdiction on the administrative side over the district in which the learned judge of the trial court is functioning. Registrar (Judicial) of this court is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned judge of the trial court forthwith. Registrar General of this court is directed to forward a copy of this order to the State Law Commission as well as the Union Law Commission. Registry has listed the matter again today with the following note: 26-7-10 [sic] Sri P G Mogali, Advocate for appellant Sri Vighneswhar S Shastry for R-1 & R2 The District & Sessions Judge, Haveri has addressed a letter dated 19-8-2010, where in the learned District Judge has stated that the suit OS No 89/1992 has been disposed of on 30-7-2010 by way of compromise. This fact has been intimated by the Civil Judge & JMFC, Hirekerur by the letter dt 5-8-2010. Further, it is stated that the request for extension of six months time to dispose of the suit may not be considered. Post RSA along with letter for orders before Hon’ble Mr DVSJ [sic] Reg: Letter for orders. This fact has been intimated by the Civil Judge & JMFC, Hirekerur by the letter dt 5-8-2010. Further, it is stated that the request for extension of six months time to dispose of the suit may not be considered. Post RSA along with letter for orders before Hon’ble Mr DVSJ [sic] Reg: Letter for orders. for passing orders on the letter dated 19-8-2010 received from the office of the District & Sessions Court, Haveri, addressed to the Registrar General of this court, which is nothing short of not only committing contempt of court proceedings but also exhibiting total lack of familiarity with the method and manner in which the registry of this court has to function, particularly so, after this court had passed an order on 13-8-2010 rejecting the request for further extension of time for the disposal of the suit. To compound the disregard and disobedience to the orders of this court, in the order sheet part of the court record in this matter, disposed of on 12-2-2008, the order passed by this court on 13-8-2010 is shown as under: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR RSA No 329/2002 Veerappa & ors .. APPELLANTS [By P G Mogal – Adv] Vs Halavva & Ors ……. RESPONDENTS [By Vighneshwar S Shastry – Adv] RSA filed against the judgment and decree dt 4-12-2001 passed in RA No 27/1987, on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr Dn) & Prl JMFC, Ranebennur, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dt 18-6-1987 passed in OS No 89/1982, on the file of the Munsiff and JMFC, Hirekerur. Read letter for extension of time in OS No 89/1982, received from District & Sessions Judge, Haveri in No ADM/476/2010 dated 27-7-2010, stating that this Hon’ble Court in OS No 89/1982, request to grant the further extension of 6 months or one year to dispose of the above said suit [sic]. After hearing, the court made the following: ORDER ORDER COPY ENCLOSED. SD/-Judge /COPY/ Sd/-ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TO: 1. The Civil Judge & JMFC, Hirekerur 2. The State Law Commission, Bangalore – Chairman, Law Commission of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 3. The Union Law Commission, New Delhi – Law Commission of India, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001 Encl: As above. After hearing, the court made the following: ORDER ORDER COPY ENCLOSED. SD/-Judge /COPY/ Sd/-ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TO: 1. The Civil Judge & JMFC, Hirekerur 2. The State Law Commission, Bangalore – Chairman, Law Commission of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 3. The Union Law Commission, New Delhi – Law Commission of India, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001 Encl: As above. This extract, purporting to be a copy of the order dated 13-8-2010 passed by this court, is nothing short of distorting court orders and nothing short of committing contempt, apart form giving rise to other possible violations in criminal law, particularly of the provisions of the IPC and a thorough misconduct on the part of the officials involved in all these developments in the wake of their service conditions regulated by the Karnataka Civil Service Rules. Registrar (Judicial) of this court has been summoned to the court hall to apprise the matter. Sri P Krishna Bhat, Registrar (Judicial) of this court sought to explain that such developments do not even come to the notice of Registrar (Judicial) before the matter is listed before the court hall for orders of the court. This again reflects a sorry state of affairs in the matter of administration of the registry, particularly relating to the preparation/noting of the order sheet by the registry after passing of orders by the court and if the version of Registrar (Judicial) is to be accepted, then, the assistant registrar concerned is the highest/final authority, who has looked into the case papers in the registry, before the matter is listed before the court for passing orders on the judicial side. The Registrars of the court, who are otherwise judicial officers, nay, senior-most district judges, are brought to this High Court and made to function as Registrars, not only as Registrar General, but also as Registrar (Vigilance), Registrar (Judicial) and Registrar (Administration) because of their considerable experience on the judicial side and also due to the reason that they will have gained sufficient experience on the administrative side, while working as district judges administering the entire judicial process in the district with several colleagues as additional district judges, many of whom are now called as fast track court judges, and civil judges, both junior and senior. In respect of the administrative functioning of the registry, the particular registrar in-charge of the branch of administration is obviously responsible and is inevitably accountable for all things happening under or below him and there cannot be an answer that a particular registrar is not responsible, because the matter does not go through him before it reaches the court hall for orders on the judicial side. A statement or version of this nature is nothing short of an irresponsible statement before the court and calls for suitable remedial measures immediately. All registrars of this court are inevitably responsible and accountable for the entire functioning of all their subordinates and officials below them and a response by stating ‘I am not responsible’ is not the answer that is expected from a person holding a very responsible post of a registrar of this court nor can such an excuse/explanation accepted. If such an excuse is accepted, the very purpose of posting senior level district judges as registrars of this court and entrusting responsibility to them is defeated. It is necessary that the registry of the High Court is streamlined, reformed and made to function efficiently and smoothly, if the performance by the judges in the court and judicial functioning is to be improved and optimized. It is very necessary that the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court, as head of the High Court on the administrative side, bestows attention on this aspect and necessary and imminent measures are taken for reforming the registry and therefore the Registrar General of this court is directed to bring this matter to the kind notice of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this court. In the wake of the order passed by this court earlier on 13-8-2010, there is no question of passing any further orders on the application or letter after letter said to have been sent by the judges functioning in the trial court or forwarded by the district and sessions judge of the district concerned. In the wake of the order passed by this court earlier on 13-8-2010, there is no question of passing any further orders on the application or letter after letter said to have been sent by the judges functioning in the trial court or forwarded by the district and sessions judge of the district concerned. Subjecting the judges of this court to go through such unnecessary correspondence and wade through the same and to pass orders on the judicial side is nothing short of harassment the judges of this court and also to some extent subjecting them to humiliation, as what is required to be done at the level of the registry is sought to be passed off as a work to be done by the judges in the court hall and on the judicial side. This again reflects a very sorry state of affairs that is prevailing in our registry, which again is a phenomenon, which calls for immediate remedial measures. Be that as it may, no further order is required to be passed in this matter by the court. There is no need for the registry to keep placing the matter time and again before the court on all and sundry letters addressed by the district judge or the judge in the trial court, which is a matter which is required to be taken care of by the registrars of this court and sorted out at that level and not by a judge of this court. It is high time the registrars also learn their lessons as to in what manner they should perform their duties and functions and if need be are imparted commensurate training from persons well versed in all these aspects. Ordered accordingly.