Live
- Bangalore North: Prof. Rajeev Gowda vs Shobha Karandlaje
- Bangalore Rural: DK Suresh vs Dr Manjunath
- Chevireddy Mohit Reddy's Nomination Process Evokes Massive Support in Chandragiri Constituency
- Bangalore Central: PC Mohan vs Mansoor Ali Khan
- Three key strategies for parents to sail through the turbulent waters of adolescence
- JSP candidate Tangella files nomination papers
- And now for the people’s verdict…
- Key leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party meet with TDP Chief Nara Chandrababu Naidu
- Apple Unveils OpenELM AI Models for On-Device Tasks: Details
- Actress Sahithi Dasari steps into politics, contesting as an independent candidate from Chevella Constituency
Supreme Court decries delaying tactics
would limpidly show that the defendant-petitioner has endeavoured very hard to master the art of adjournment and on occasions having been successful, become quite ambitious. And the ambition had no bounds; it could reach the Everestine heights or put it differently, could engulf the entire Pacific Ocean.”
If a case ever exposed the maladroit efforts of a litigant to indulge in abuse of the process of court, the present one is a resplendent example.” These are the opening words of a scathing judgment delivered recently by the Supreme Court wherein the court expressed its anguish and dismay in the following words:The factual narration.
would limpidly show that the defendant-petitioner has endeavoured very hard to master the art of adjournment and on occasions having been successful, become quite ambitious. And the ambition had no bounds; it could reach the Everestine heights or put it differently, could engulf the entire Pacific Ocean.”
The case on hand, titled Gayathri (Petitioner) Vs. M Girish (Respondent), SLP-C.C No.14061 of 2016 is a classic example of how the interested parties indulge in the abuse of law and procrastinate the judicial process for years together.
After giving the graphic details of the case, Justice Dipak Misra speaking for himself and fellow judge Rohinton F Nariman reprimanded the defendant-petitioner in these strong words:“In the case at hand, it can indubitably be stated that the defendant-petitioner has acted in a manner to cause colossal insult to justice and to the concept of speedy disposal of civil litigation...The saying of Gita “Awake!" Arise! Oh Partha’ is apt here to be stated for guidance of trial courts.
The case pertained to the recovery of possession and damages filed in the year 2007. The progress of the case was scuttled by the defendant who filed as many as 22 interlocutory applications (IAs) successively. So much so, the plaintiff, a septuagenarian was constrained to come to court on seven occasions for his examination-in-chief.
The bench cited a plethora of its earlier judgments on the subject including K.K Velusamy v. N Palanisamy, (2011)11 SC 275, Bagai Construction v.Gupta Building Material Store, (2013) 14 SCC 1, Shiv Cotex v.
Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd., (2011)9 SCC 678 and Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand, (2013) 5 SCC 202 and also offered a piece of advice to the lawyers saying, a counsel appearing for a litigant has to have institutional responsibility. Applications are not to be filed in a brazen and obtrusive manner, the apex court said and added: “It is wholly reprehensible. The law does not countenance it and, if we permit ourselves to say so, the professional ethics decries such practice. It is because such acts are against the majesty of law.”
The court not only dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) but also imposed the cost of Rs 50,000. Before parting, it would be interesting to know that right in Secunderabad civil court (and may be in other courts ,too) in a particular litigation there had been filed a few years ago not 22 or 32 interlocutory applications, but... hold your breath.
over 1,000 such IAs !Hope, after recent introduction of Chapter XXI in the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders and in the light of the Supreme Court judgment discussed herein, the litigants, lawyers and judges would ponder over this serious issue of deliberating causing delay in justice delivery system and will put an end to this nefarious practice firmly.
No aspersions on judges, pleaseOnce again on August 5, the Joint Action Committee (JAC) of Telangana lawyers observed the boycott of courts ostensibly to protest over the initiation of disciplinary action against some 13 advocates from Warangal district.
While the associations of lawyers which have been registered under the Societies Act and its modified version for the State has any rights of such agitation in view of the specific undertaking such associations have to give to get the registration read with several judgments of the apex court and the High Courts on the subject remains a mute question of law what is yet more intriguing is the appearance of some computer – printed posters in the lower courts which allege partisan attitude of the judges from ‘Seemandhra.
Indeed, this is not a healthy trend. By making allegations of bias, the agitating lawyers are questioning the independence of judiciary which is a serious matter as it amounts to the direct attack on the most revered pillar of the Constitution, called the judiciary. Such tendencies have to be nipped in the bud with an iron hand. Freedom of protest can by no stretch of imagination be extended to insult and denigrate the judges and judiciary.
