Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 193 (MAD)

Prathap D. Nair v. Shara

2023-01-11

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2023
ORDER : [Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to issue a direction to expeditiously dispose of HMOP No.2053 of 2021 pending on the file of the Court of Sub Ordinate Judge, Alandur by hearing the matter on a day to day basis and within a fixed time frame.] 1. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been instituted to issue a direction to expeditiously dispose of HMOP No.2053 of 2021 pending on the file of the Court of Sub Ordinate Judge, Alandaur by hearing the matter on a day to day basis and within a fixed time frame. 2. The revision petitioner/husband instituted proceedings for Dissolution of Marriage in HMOP No.2053 of 2021 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Alandur. 3. The grievances of the revision petitioner is that the cases are being adjourned periodically without any valid reason and the long pendency of matrimonial dispute is causing prejudice to the interest of the revision petitioner. 4. The matrimonial disputes are to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Even as per Statute, Courts are expected to be conscious, while dealing with the matrimonial disputes, since either of the parties may not be in a position to take a decision regarding their future life. Thus, the Court concerned dealing with the matrimonial dispute is bound to consider the case as expeditiously as possible and dispose of the same. 5. Unnecessary adjournments on flimsy grounds would cause prejudice to the parties to the litigation. Rule is to conduct the case on the date it is posted for hearing. Adjournment is an exception. Thus, adjournments are to be granted only on genuine grounds and even in such circumstances, on commencement of trial long adjournments are to be avoided. The reason is to be recorded by the Courts, if it is genuine. 6. Long pendency of litigations causing untold mental agony to the litigants are to be considered by the Courts concerned, while granting adjournments in a routine manner. If any party seeks adjournment on flimsy grounds or attempts to prolong and protract the case, then heavy cost is to be awarded, which is to be paid to the other party, who is ready to conduct the case. If such adjournments are frequently sought for, then exemplary or maximum costs are to be awarded by the Court concerned. If any party seeks adjournment on flimsy grounds or attempts to prolong and protract the case, then heavy cost is to be awarded, which is to be paid to the other party, who is ready to conduct the case. If such adjournments are frequently sought for, then exemplary or maximum costs are to be awarded by the Court concerned. The endeavour of the Court is to ensure that the cases are disposed of as expeditiously as possible by avoiding unnecessary adjournments. 7. The High Court cannot issue directions to the District Judiciary for speedy disposal of cases in a routine manner. Issuing frequent directions cannot be a practical solution. The trust on the District Judiciary due to overburdening of litigation on Board is to be taken into consideration by the High Court. The routine directions for speedy disposal, if issued, would further cause unnecessary pressure on the District Judiciary. In many such cases, directions are issued, wherein the District Judiciary has come out with administrative letter, seeking extension of time again and again and thus, the purpose for which such directions were issued by the High Court became defeated. 8. The longevity of the litigations are occurring at the instance of the parties on many occasions. The legal brains are adopting tactical approach to prolong and protract the cases for unjust gains and for Forum Shopping. Any party having an idea to achieve their goal in an indirect or illegal manner, and adopting all such tactics for the purpose of prolonging the case, cannot be tolerated by the Courts. On some occasion, if any litigants feel that a particular Judicial Officer in the District Judiciary is inconvenient to them, they are seeking adjournments after adjournments or filing frivolous interlocutory applications through which they all are causing longevity to the litigation. Ill-motives of such litigants if allowed to succeed, then the same will result in miscarriage of justice and thus the Courts are expected to be cautious, while granting unnecessary adjournments on flimsy grounds. All such attempts should be thwarted by the Courts and the Court cannot aid such ill-motive of the parties. Ill-motives of such litigants if allowed to succeed, then the same will result in miscarriage of justice and thus the Courts are expected to be cautious, while granting unnecessary adjournments on flimsy grounds. All such attempts should be thwarted by the Courts and the Court cannot aid such ill-motive of the parties. The frivolous and unnecessary interlocutory applications are to be dealt with in accordance with law and if the Court forms an opinion that such interlocutory applications are filed with an idea to prolong and protract the issues or filed with ill-motives, then the Court would not hesitate in awarding exemplary or maximum cost on such applications. The cases are to be disposed of in consistent manner to avoid unnecessary allegations and to redress the grievances of the parties approaching the Court of Law. 9. In the event of issuing direction in Civil Revision Petitions for speedy disposal without considering the number of cases pending in a particular Court on Board, it will result in discrimination against many other litigants, who all are waiting for disposal of their respective cases. There are allegations against the Courts that the cases are selectively picked up and disposed of. The plight of the poor and downtrodden are also to be taken into consideration, while disposing of the cases. The Court cannot provide any room for such feeling to the litigants. The trust on the Judicial System is the Hallmark and any form of favouritism or otherwise even in the matter of hearing of cases will have larger repercussions on the system. No doubt certain cases are to be disposed of urgently if there is a public interest involved or the litigants are able to establish genuine urgency for early disposal of the cases. Such cases alone are to be given priority. 10. The practice of giving preference to any litigation without any justification at all circumstances to be avoided. Every litigant approaching the Court of Law is waiting for justice and thus, it must be done in a consistent manner and without discriminating the litigants. Therefore issuing directions indiscriminately for speedy disposal of cases by the District Judiciary would do no service to the cause of justice. Every urgency cannot be considered for issuing a direction for speedy disposal, the urgency, which is imminent to be considered. 11. In matrimonial cases many number of persons are waiting for relief. Therefore issuing directions indiscriminately for speedy disposal of cases by the District Judiciary would do no service to the cause of justice. Every urgency cannot be considered for issuing a direction for speedy disposal, the urgency, which is imminent to be considered. 11. In matrimonial cases many number of persons are waiting for relief. Giving priority to one matrimonial case would cause prejudice to the other cases, which all are also to be disposed of within a reasonable period of time. 12. High Court cannot issue such directions for speedy disposal unless there is a justification or acceptable reason for issuing any such directions. The Court concerned is expected to regulate its own procedures in respect of the cases on Board for effective disposal and to ensure that the cases are disposed of within a reasonable period of time. 13. With these observations, the Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.