Judgment : 1. India has emerged as an Information Technology Power House of the world, but not Indian Judiciary. Whether judicial accountability would include creation of paperless Court or atleast less paper Courts towards ensuring speedy justice is the issue indirectly arising for consideration in this case. 2. The first petitioner in both these Civil Revision Petitions / plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S.No.592 of 2004 seeking relief of partition against her brothers and sister. 2.1. Parimalam, (D-3 in O.S.No.592 of 2004), who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.153 /2005 also sought similar relief of partition (of 1/5th share) in the above suit. 2.2. Both suits were decreed. 3. Aggrieved over the same, defendants 1 and 2 filed two separate appeals in A.S.Nos.131 of 2009 and 44 of 2008. These appeals are said to be pending for a period of five/four years and directions are sought for speedy disposal of those appeals. 4. It is seen that in both the appeals, the records were called for and the same were awaited from III Additional Sub Court at Coimbatore, which is located in the same campus, where the District Court is also situated, from 04.02.2009 onwards. 5. Perusal of the docket entry would go to show that from 2008/2009 till 16.04.2014, the appeal has been adjourned only on the ground that the records were awaited. There is no reason as to why the records were not sent to the District Court, Coimbatore, from III Additional Subordinate Court, which are situated, within the same campus and which are at walkable distance. 6. A.S.44 OF 2008 (as against O.S.No.153 of 2005) has been taken on file on 01.04.2008 and it has been made over to I Additional District Court on 28.04.2008. From 04.02.2009 onwards, the case has been adjourned only on the ground 'await records' till 15.04.2014. The entry 'Await records' has suffered ditto by 89 times. Out of 89 entries, only 2 to 3 entries read: “Judge on transfer, Judge on Leave and Judge on duty”. Excepting this, all other entries read 'Await Records'. 7. A.S.No.131 of 2009 (as against O.S.No.592 of 2004) has been taken on file on 03.02.2009 and made over to I Additional District Court on 06.01.2010. From 06.01.2010, the appeal has been adjourned only on the ground of 'Await records' till 16.04.2014. Excepting this, all other entries read 'Await Records'. 7. A.S.No.131 of 2009 (as against O.S.No.592 of 2004) has been taken on file on 03.02.2009 and made over to I Additional District Court on 06.01.2010. From 06.01.2010, the appeal has been adjourned only on the ground of 'Await records' till 16.04.2014. The last docket entry is 'Await records' by 25.06.2014, and the same entry has suffered “ditto” by 48 times. 8. The direction “calling for records” could have been complied with within 10 minutes, but it had not been implemented and the appeal is pending for nearly 5 to 6 years, only for want of records. 8.1. There is no justification on the part of the Sub Court, to have remained mute, without complying with the directions 'calling for records'. 8.2. There could have been no scope for calling for records had there been computerization at the level of Subordinate Courts. 8.3. In the era of Information and Communication Technology, where technology dictates the life-style, whether the Court is justified in not rendering timely justice and waiting for records for years together, when justice is the first promise of the Constitution; speedy justice is the fundamental right of the litigants; and when the whole world is moving at a rocket speed. 8.4. Dr.A.P.J.Abdul Kalam, the former President of India, on the eve of inauguration of the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal, on September 5, 2002 said, Judiciary is the guardian of the civilized life. 8.5. Mr. M.C.Chagla, the former Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court said, “Courts exist for the convenience of the litigant and not in order to maintain any particular system of law or any particular system of administration.” 8.6. This saying is quoted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Naraina, AIR 1983 SC 46 @ 56. 8.7. Judicial system, which delays disposal of cases or resolution of disputes over decades can be said to have out-lived its utility (Law Commission of India, 131st Report (1988, 16)). 8.8. Reform of legal and judicial system depends critically on a sound understanding of its existing structure and level of efficiency (World Bank Report, Chapter-VI, (Judicial System) (2002, 120). 8.9. 8.7. Judicial system, which delays disposal of cases or resolution of disputes over decades can be said to have out-lived its utility (Law Commission of India, 131st Report (1988, 16)). 8.8. Reform of legal and judicial system depends critically on a sound understanding of its existing structure and level of efficiency (World Bank Report, Chapter-VI, (Judicial System) (2002, 120). 8.9. The Country needs an “accountable judiciary” for dispensing quick, affordable and incorruptible justice to the people – said, Mr.K.R.Narayanan, former President of India, on the occasion of Golden Jubilee of Supreme Court of India. 8.10. In the Book, titled as 'Justice at Cross Road', Justice V.R.Krishnaiyer speaks of delay in the following words: “Today the Courts system is ossified to the point, priced to the level, and slow to the degree, where they cannot flexibly assist disputants in dissolving their every day dispute”. 8.11. No doubt, one of the glories of Indian Judicial System is that, citizens have direct access to higher judiciary to effectuate a vital set of fundamental protection. Still, for most citizens and most matters, the site at which they use the system is the lower Court. 8.12. There were times when the judiciary evoked enormous public respect and admiration. What happened to this (envy of the world) image over the years, is the issue to ponder over. 9. What is to be done to enhance timely justice and to improve the image of judiciary? Digital Repository. 9.1. The traditional method of filing a petition in Court has been in paper format. Frequent handling of physical documents often causes deterioration and mutilation of records. Digitalization of statutes, judgments, records are the need of the hour. 9.2. The physical storage of records create problems with reference to the following aspects:- (i) space required to maintain the records; (ii) access to information by the judges, lawyers and researchers restricted to a single user; (iii) delay in providing records for examination; (iv) life of physical records – wear and tear due to constant physical handling; (v) manpower required to maintain the records. (vi) Health hazard to personnel manning the record dept 9.3. The suggestive remedial measures is to have a centralised digitalised record room. (vi) Health hazard to personnel manning the record dept 9.3. The suggestive remedial measures is to have a centralised digitalised record room. To put it in simple words, once the suit is numbered its particulars are to be entered in the digital form and a bar-code can be created and it can be pasted in the docket, so that, when the bar code is scanned with a hand scanner all the basic details of the case will be shown in the computer and further security check can be created by authorizing only higher level staff and judicial officers to have access to the documents of the said case. 9.4. By introducing this system what will happen is that uniform safety of records will be ensured to all documents pertaining to all the courts, irrespective of the availability of the space, character of the staff handling the documents and the physical handling of the records will totally come to an end. The possibility of missing records can be avoided to larger extent. 9.5. The ongoing computerization of courts under E-committee Project has underlined the importance of the digitalization of the courts. Chapter 6 of the phase II of the policy document reads as follows: CHAPTER 6 Although Paperless Courts across the country may be a dream, but at least 'Less Paper' Courts can be made a reality by combining all the practical and implementable technical advancements offered in the ICT arena. To curtail use and handling of physical paper, the foremost necessity for the Courts is to start converting the existing case record to the digitized form. This will entail a large scale scanning activity in the Court across the country. This will immensely help in saving of space and related infrastructure in preserving and retrieving the case record in a physical form. With this vision, the following activities in Phase II of the eCourts Project need to be provisioned: 1. Scanning and Digitization of the Case Record of High Court and District Courts: Case record of the pending cases and case record of the disposed cases which has undergone the basic weeding process will be covered in the process of scanning and digitization. The output file format of the digitized file will be PDF/A or its advanced versions with features like watermarking and digital signatures to ensure the authenticity of the digitized repositories to be created. The output file format of the digitized file will be PDF/A or its advanced versions with features like watermarking and digital signatures to ensure the authenticity of the digitized repositories to be created. For better search, e-Courts Project – Phase II - Policy & Action Plan – e-Committee Page 53 of 91 access and retrieval of the free text search enablement of PDF/A output will also have to be done. 2. Document Management System: There remains no optimum utilization of digitized output unless it is ported to a Document Management System (DMS). A Free and Open Source Solution (FOSS) DMS will be the DMS for Scanning and Digitization project in the Phase II of the eCourts Project. The Document Management System (DMS) adopted in the Project being undertaken for scanning/digitization of Supreme court Case Record is DSPace (a FOSS DMS) with customization to suit the requirements of the Registry. Data Fields which will be minimum necessary for data entry in the DMS will have to be finalized. Specifications of the FOSS Document Management System to be deployed will also have to be finalized after assessing the requirements of meta-data for High Courts and District Court Case Records. 3. Implementation Model for Scanning and Digitization: The implementation model of the scanning and digitization activity for the case record of the High Court and District Courts will be similar to the implementation model being adopted for local infrastructure deployment as given in Chapter 2. In order to preserve unified and standardized digitization parameters, design and specifications will be finalized centrally for being adopted for this component of the Project. This is vital to ensure seamless integration and interoperability amongst the Document Repositories of the Courts across the country. The experiences gained at Supreme Court and other High Courts in this area will be useful reference for designing the methodology and specifications for this activity. 4. Long Term Digital Preservation of Case Records: In the process of digitization of documents, after conversion from hard to soft copy, the chief requirements for optimum and sustained usage of the documents are Retrieval and Preservation/Archival. (a) Retrieval: The Retrieval is ensured by porting the soft copies of the data into DMS. The objectives achieved by retrieval is only limited to frequent day to day use of the documents and does not take care of long term preservation and archival of documents. (a) Retrieval: The Retrieval is ensured by porting the soft copies of the data into DMS. The objectives achieved by retrieval is only limited to frequent day to day use of the documents and does not take care of long term preservation and archival of documents. E-Courts Project – Phase II - Policy & Action Plan – E-Committee Page 54 of 91. (b) Preservation/Archival: The digital documents, most of which generally form the backbone of knowledge and reference warehouse of Courts, needs to be preserved and archived for considerably long period of time which may span over decades, if not centuries. The need for an archival solution arises because of the inability of the retrieval solution to serve for long term preservation. The main challenge in the way of regular and uninterrupted long term use of the soft copies of the digitized data that is archival and preservation is the frequent obsolescence of technology. The phenomenon of obsolescence of technology mainly hinders archival and preservation in terms of three aspects which are (i) Technology of the storage media, (ii) the software used to access the soft copy of the data and (iii) Type (format) of file in which the soft copy is saved in digital form. (c) National Digital Preservation Programme: The experience of the IT industry so far shows that every five years or so the technology advancements brings about a drastic changes in the types of storage medias, softwares for accessing files and types of files in which the documents are stored. Deity has established a Centre of Excellence for Digital Preservation under the aegis of Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC) as a part of National Digital Preservation of Programme (NDDP) of the Government of India. (http://www.ndpp.in/).The software solutions for digital preservation address the obsolescence of technology with a very strategic and sophisticated methodology. The three types of obsolescence as enumerated above are addressed and managed distinctively and in such a modular method wherein a shift in technology of any of these three aspects successfully fits into the solution in sync with each other. The mismatch of technology or software version or file type version is taken care of by maintaining a real or virtual integrated environment for supporting each of the storage media, software and file format in any of the versions of their life cycle. The mismatch of technology or software version or file type version is taken care of by maintaining a real or virtual integrated environment for supporting each of the storage media, software and file format in any of the versions of their life cycle. (d) OAIS Framework: Foremost of the solutions in the sphere of long term digital preservation is OAIS (Open Archival Information System) framework. OAIS framework provides methodology of software solutions for digital preservation which provides continued access to digital. E-Courts Project – Phase II - Policy & Action Plan – e-Committee Page 55 of 91 materials for as long as necessary, involving the planning, resource allocation, and application of preservation methods and technologies to ensure that digital information of continuing value remains accessible and usable. It combines policies, strategies and actions to ensure access to reformatted and born digital content regardless of the challenges of media failure and technological change. The goal of digital preservation through OAIS is the accurate rendering of authenticated content over time. (e) Trusted Digital Repositories (TDRs): CDAC has been working for implementing this framework based solution for District Courts of Delhi and Supreme Court on pilot basis by creating solution for establishing a Trusted Digital Repository. The ultimate benefit of scanning and digitization could be achieved when the need of preserving the physical case record is eliminated by means which offer reliable and established methods of Long Term Digital Preservation. Courts being one of the institutions with enormous record in physical form, Trusted Digital Repositories (TDR) for Courts will be highly necessary which may be considered for implementation in Phase II along with the Scanning and Digitization activity.” 9.6. The use of Information Technology could not be fully explored in Indian Judiciary, despite the lapse of one-and-half decade. The Subordinate Courts, through a Centrally sponsored schemed envisaged in the year 1977, were sought to be computerized. For this purpose, machines, printers, cables, etc., were purchased and some softwares were sent to all Courts by NIC, but nothing happened with regard to computerization of documents. It is true that e-filing has been introduced in some states and e-filing in complete shape is not done in Tamil Nadu Judiciary. For this purpose, machines, printers, cables, etc., were purchased and some softwares were sent to all Courts by NIC, but nothing happened with regard to computerization of documents. It is true that e-filing has been introduced in some states and e-filing in complete shape is not done in Tamil Nadu Judiciary. Either e-filing system may be introduced in which documents will be available in e-format or after filing, Court can convert all documents in e-form, so that the documents will be available at all times quickly and easily in e-format. 9.7. There may not be much controversy over the issue of accessibility of some of the contents of the court file, such as judgments and orders, but there will likely be controversy about accessibility to most of the other documents and information contained in the electronic court files, which will need policy decisions reflected in the rules on accessibility. 9.8. While framing such rules, the Court must ensure that their process are not used improperly for purposes unrelated to their role by access to court records. The access to court records may raise important issues of liability, if wrong information is recorded in the electronic record or if correct information is given to an unauthorised person. Therefore, it should be the main responsibility of the party and his counsel to supply correct information and the staff to ensure that the court record and docket information is complete and accurate. 9.9. Consideration ought to be given for the purpose of tracking the identity of the users, how to track them and about informing them that their identity is being tracked is the another issue, which may be discussed, while decisions are being taken to implement paperless Court project. 10. Coming back to the merits of the matter, what is the procedure to be followed, when an appeal is filed before the appellate court. 10.1. Order 41 contains the answer. Under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC. - (1) The appellate court, after fixing a day for hearing the appellant or his pleader and hearing him accordingly, if he appears on that day, may dismiss the appeal. (2) ...... (3) ....... (4) ..... R.11A. Time within which hearing under rule 11 should be concluded. 10.1. Order 41 contains the answer. Under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC. - (1) The appellate court, after fixing a day for hearing the appellant or his pleader and hearing him accordingly, if he appears on that day, may dismiss the appeal. (2) ...... (3) ....... (4) ..... R.11A. Time within which hearing under rule 11 should be concluded. - Every appeal shall be heard under rule 11 as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude such hearing within sixty days from the date on which the memorandum of appeal is filed. R.12.Day for hearing appeal.- (1) Unless the appellate court dismisses the appeal under Rule 11, it shall fix a day for hearing the appeal. (2) such day shall be fixed with reference to the current business of the Court. 10.2. If those provisions of Order 41 Rules 11, 11A and 12 of CPC are read together, it makes it obligatory for the appellate court to fix a day for the preliminary hearing of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and to make endeavour to conclude such hearings within sixty days from the date on which the memorandum of appeal is filed, and, unless the appeal is summarily dismissed at the preliminary hearing, to fix a day for final hearing. In other words, only if the appeal is not summarily dismissed at the threshold, then the question of fixing a day for final hearing would arise. 10.3. Rule 11, which was in force, prior to the enforcement of CPC Amendment Act, 1999, (implemented with effect from 01.07.2002), reads as under:- Rule 11. Power to dismiss appeal without sending notice to the lower court. - (1) The appellate Court after sending for the record if it thinks fit to do so and after fixing a day for hearing the appellant or his pleader, and hearing him accordingly, if he appears on that day, may dismiss the appeal without sending notice to the Court, from whose decree the appeal is preferred and without serving notice on the respondent or his pleader. (2) .... (3) .... (4) .... 10.4. From the perusal of old Rule 11, “calling for records” would be necessary, only if the appellate court thinks fit to do so and not otherwise. 10.5. (2) .... (3) .... (4) .... 10.4. From the perusal of old Rule 11, “calling for records” would be necessary, only if the appellate court thinks fit to do so and not otherwise. 10.5. Therefore, the appellate court is not justified in calling for records without deciding, whether it would be necessary at all to call for the records and it is totally improper to have waited for the receipt of the records. 11. In view of the above observation, the Sub Court, Coimbatore, is directed to send the records immediately, if not already sent, and the learned District judge is directed to dispose of the appeal, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that as the two appeals are arising out of Common Judgment, both appeals are directed to be jointly heard and disposed of. 12. In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.