Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 926 (CAL)

Jugal Kishore Sharma v. Gulzari Lall Sharma

2011-07-14

RAGHUNATH RAY

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for early disposal of the Money Suit No. 02 of 2008 (Shri G. L. Sharma v. Shri J. K. Sharma and Another) and Other Suit No. 83 of 2009 (Shri J.K. Sharma and Others v. G.L. Sharma and Others) pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Port Blair. 2. ON perusal of the prayer portion of the revisional application, it appears that the petitioners plaintiffs of Other Suit No. 83 of 2009 have prayed inter alia for issuance of a direction upon the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Andaman at Port Blair to dispose of both the suits namely Money Suit No. 02/2008 filed by the plaintiff opposite party No. 1 as also other suit No. 83 of 2009 filed by them within a period of six months hearing the same analogously or fixing same day without allowing any adjournment to any of the parties. The prayer appears to be innocuous. Before dealing with the relief as sought for by the revisionist it would be convenient to look into the averments made by the petitioner in this revisional application for a better appreciation of the backdrop of the present case. In paragraph 9 of the petition, the petitioner No. 1 has averred that he is aged about 75 years and suffering from various aliments and all his family members are in mainland and as such it is not possible for him to wait for a long time for a decision of both the suits. He being a senior citizen, deserves preference over and above other cases pending before the learned trial Court. His further grievance ventilated therein is that, both the suits are almost at the stage of evidence and, therefore, the same are required to be disposed of within a specified time limit but the learned Court below is fixing the date after a long gap and such a situation is clearly discernable from the order sheets of both the suits. 3. APPEARING in support of the revision it is submitted by Mr. N. A. Khan learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/ petitioners that the said money suit is pending for about two years while the other suit in question is also pending for about three years. 3. APPEARING in support of the revision it is submitted by Mr. N. A. Khan learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/ petitioners that the said money suit is pending for about two years while the other suit in question is also pending for about three years. It is further argued by him that the parties of both the suits would be equally benefited if their respective claim is adjudicated expeditiously within a specified time frame. By referring to xerox copies of order sheets of both the suits annexed to the petition, it is pointed out by him that both the suits had unnecessarily been dragged years together causing much hardship to both the sides. Therefore, an order directing expeditious disposal of these suits either analogously or one after another is necessitated because of the exigencies of circumstances enumerated in the writ petition itself. Dates are being fixed at long interval without taking into consideration the plight of the revisionist No. 1 who happens to be a senior citizen as also parties in both the suits either as a plaintiff or as a defendant. Therefore, the necessary direction as sought for in order to ensure speedy disposal of the case, if passed, would serve the ends of justice. 4. SUCH submission is, however, strongly disputed on behalf of the opposite parties on the ground that the suits in question should not be given priority over all other pending suits for its expeditious disposal before the learned Court below. According to him, if the learned trial Judge is directed to take up the hearing of the suit on day-to-day basis ignoring his daily business schedule, it would seriously disturb the schedule already fixed by the learned trial Court. In this context, he has referred to an unreported judgment of the Single Bench of this Court delivered in C.R. No. 018 of 2010 in support of his contention. I have taken into consideration the rival contention of the learned Counsel of both the parties with reference to averments made in the petition as also ordersheets of both the suits annexed to the petition and the judgment referred to hereinbefore. 5. ADMITTEDLY, the revisionist No. 1 is a septuagenarian and senior citizen. I have taken into consideration the rival contention of the learned Counsel of both the parties with reference to averments made in the petition as also ordersheets of both the suits annexed to the petition and the judgment referred to hereinbefore. 5. ADMITTEDLY, the revisionist No. 1 is a septuagenarian and senior citizen. It cannot also be disputed that a senior citizen is normally treated with reverence in every sphere of our society and is given preference to others and no resentment whatsoever is noticed from any quarter of our society. The well settled practice normally followed in our High Court is that cases involving senior citizens should invariably be given priority over other pending cases. It is also an admitted position that special Courts are also sometimes constituted to deal with the cases involving senior citizens and/ or women in order to ensure a speedy trial. Even in the Daily Cause List of our High Court one or two days in a week are earmarked for hearing the various types of cases involving senior citizens. 6. IT would, therefore, be a most desirable and appreciable approach on the part of the learned subordinate Courts if senior citizen matters are taken up by them either suo-motu or by way of a special mentioning on behalf of the senior citizens and disposed of within a reasonable period of time. IT is needless to mention that such positive steps, if taken with due diligence and sincerity by the learned Judges and Magistrates in this regard, the same would fulfill the societal obligations as also instill confidence in the mind of the senior citizens at the fag end of their life. Viewing the matter from that perspective it would be neither unusual nor irregular to give preference to such cases where senior citizens are involved as one of the parties. In such view of the matter the unreported decision of a Single Bench of this High Court cited from the side of the opposite parties is easily distinguishable on facts. The said decision is, therefore, neither factually nor contextually relevant in the given facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. NOW turning to the state of affairs as reflected in the ordersheets of both the suits, I feel constrained to observe that dilatory tactics have been resorted to linger on the suits for years together without any rhyme of reason. 7. NOW turning to the state of affairs as reflected in the ordersheets of both the suits, I feel constrained to observe that dilatory tactics have been resorted to linger on the suits for years together without any rhyme of reason. It appears that WS filed by the defendant was accepted by the learned trial Judge and the next date for framing of issues was fixed on 23.6.2009 vide Order No. 13 dated 12.3.2009. It is most unfortunate and rudely shocking to note that, even though two years have silently elapsed, issues are yet to be framed in the said Money Suit. It, however, appears that the order directing framing of issues on 27.6.2011 was passed by the learned trial Judge on 24.5.2011. Therefore, both the suits pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Port Blair is now at the stage of framing of issues. 8. HAVING regard to the extremely sorry state of affairs reflected through relevant ordersheets of both the suits coupled with the fact that the revisionist No. 1, even though a senior citizen has unjustifiedly been harassed in view of procrastination in proceeding with the suits. I am, therefore, of the view that the relief sought for by the revisionist is quite reasonable and apposite in the backdrop of facts and circumstance of the case as disclosed before this Court. That apart, neither of the parities would also be prejudiced if the learned Court below is directed to dispose of the suit one after another within a specific time frame to ameliorate the torment and terrible sufferings of the revisionist No.1. Rather such positive direction would undoubtedly subserve the interest of justice. Viewed in the light of foregoing discussion, I feel inclined to pass the necessary direction upon the learned trial Court to proceed with the trial of both the suits as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division is specifically directed to frame the issues in both the suits with utmost expedition and to proceed with the trial without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the sides and to dispose of money suit No. 02 of 2008 and Other Suit No. 83 of 2009 one after another within a period of six months strictly in accordance with law without fail. 9. 9. WITH the directions as above, CR No. 019 of 2011 is thus disposed of without, however, any order as to costs.