IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 453 of 2009. Date of decision: 30.5.2011. Vatna alias Wattan Chand & Anr. …Petitioners. Versus Charanu alias Charan Dass & Ors …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This case depicts a depressing state of affair which shows how judicial proceedings can linger on for decades together, because the Presiding Officers show total lack of control over the proceedings and give adjournments to the parties just for the asking. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit on 17.2.1993 for permanent injunction praying that the defendants be restrained from making any interference or taking forcible possession of the suit land. 3. Notice of this suit was issued on 18.2.1993 and 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. a stay order was passed in favour of the plaintiffs on the : 2 : same date. On 20.4.1993 counsel appeared for all the defendants and sought time to file written statement/reply. The matter was adjourned to 8.6.1993 and again time was sought to file written statement/reply and thereafter the matter was adjourned to 18.8.1993. On this date, a statement was made that defendant No.8 had died. The learned Court below did not ask the other defendants to file the written statement, but proceeded with the matter only in respect of bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.8. For this purpose the plaintiffs sought two adjournments and then filed the application. 4. Thereafter, defendant No.1 also died and the matter proceeded at its own pace only for the purpose of bringing on record legal representatives. On various dates steps were not taken, process fee was not filed for summoning the legal representative or their guardians. Finally, almost two years later on 18.4.1995 service was complete. In the meantime one more defendant, i.e. defendant No.2 died and an application was filed to bring on record his legal representatives. On 22.2.1996 the plaintiff made a statement that the name of defendant No.8 be deleted from the array of defendants and counsel for the defendants made a statement that he had no objection to the legal representative for defendants No.1 and 2 being : 3 : brought on record. It is indeed shocking that just to bring on record the legal representatives the Court kept granting adjournments and it took almost three years for the legal representatives to be brought on record. 5. This unfortunate story does not end here. Thereafter amended plaint was filed and time was sought for filing written statement. Though written statement could have easily been filed by the defendants during this period of three years, none of the Presiding Officers thought it fit to ask the defendants who were duly represented to file their written statement merely because the case had become defective, because of the death of one of the defendants. When a party dies it does not mean that other proceedings cannot carry on simultaneously. It may be true, that evidence cannot be recorded, but there is no reason why the written statement of the other defendants who were duly represented by counsel could not be filed or directed to be filed by the Courts. This shows that the learned Presiding Officers had either left this work to their ministerial staff or had no control over the proceedings. Even after the amended plaint was filed in which the only amendment was with regard to the memo of parties four further opportunities were taken to file written statement which was finally filed on 21.3.1997. : 4 : 6. Three opportunities were taken to file replication and issues framed on 16.8.1997. The case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs on 8.12.1997, but no steps were taken, therefore, another adjournment was granted for this purpose and case was fixed for 25.4.1998. In the meantime, another defendant died and another application was filed for bringing on record the legal representative of this defendant. 15 adjournments were granted for decision of this application and finally on 20.12.1999 the application was allowed and thereafter notice was issued to the proposed legal representatives. It is not understood why, when the application for bringing on record the legal representative is filed, the Courts could not immediately send notice to the proposed legal representatives and simultaneously ask that a reply to the application for bringing on record the legal heirs be filed by the defendants who were duly represented. 7. It took 45 adjournments to serve the proposed legal representatives. Finally some of them were served by publication, but it is indeed shocking that from 1996 to 2006 the learned Presiding Officers who presided over the Court did not deem it fit to order that the plaintiff should take dasti summons for service of the proposed legal representative or take steps to serve them by publication or by registered post. The Presiding Officers did not apply : 5 : their minds and adjournments were given on the mere asking of the parties. Therefore, in a case which was filed in the year 1993 till 23.5.2006 service of the proposed legal representatives was not completed. 8. On 23.5.2006 learned counsel for the defendants stated that one of the LRs had also expired. Without any application of mind notices were sent to the LRs of this legal representative without realizing that the estate of the original defendant was adequately represented in the suit. On 15.6.2006 learned counsel for plaintiffs stated that he wanted to file an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and as many as nine adjournments were given for this purpose and this application was finally filed on 26.10.2006. On 7.11.2006 the learned counsel for the defendants made a statement that he did not want to file reply to the application and the same was allowed without contest. It is clear that neither the Court, nor the counsel applied their mind during this entire period for which dates were being granted without any rhyme or reason. 9. Thereafter pleadings were completed and then on 18.1.2007 the Presiding Officer realized that directions had been issued on 24.6.2004 for moving application for bringing on record the LRs of Kesri Devi who in turn was the legal representative of deceased defendant No.4 and : 6 : Parsino Devi LR of defendant No.2(a). It took three years for the Court to realize that the order has not been complied with and thereafter another application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed for deletion of their names. Again this was not objected and finally fresh issues were framed on 14.3.2007. 10. A surprising aspect of this case is that the learned Judge who framed issues on 14.3.2007 did not realize that issues already stood framed in this suit on 16.8.1997. It took 10 years for service to be completed and the learned Presiding Officer framed fresh issues without even realizing that his predecessor 10 years earlier had also framed issues. 11. The case was then fixed for evidence of the plaintiff on 30.4.2007 when no evidence was present, but on the next date, i.e. on 28.5.2007 the plaintiffs examined their entire evidence and thereafter the defendants took three dates to get their evidence recorded and the case was fixed for arguments for 15.11.2007. On this date an adjournment was asked for and the matter was adjourned to 3.1.2008 on which date the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was adjourned to 15.1.2008 for proper orders and then adjourned to 31.1.2008 for arguments. Again a date was requested and the matter was adjourned to 25.2.2008. This time again counsel requested : 7 : for another adjournment and the case was adjourned to 17.3.2008. The matter was then adjourned to 19.3.2008 when it was heard in part and adjourned to 24.4.2008. On this date, the learned Presiding Officer was transferred and the matter was then taken up for 9.5.2008 for proper orders and again listed for 9.6.2008 for re-arguments and on this date again both the learned counsel asked for adjournments and this adjournment was granted just on the mere asking and the matter was adjourned to 26.6.2008. On 26.6.2008 again learned counsel stated that they were not ready for arguments and the matter was adjourned to 3.9.2008. On 3.9.2008 again request was made for adjournment and the matter was adjourned to 15.10.2008, then the matter was adjourned again to 14.11.2008 on which date an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed. 12. I am shocked by the manner in which the learned Presiding Officers granted dates even after the evidence was concluded. Did they not realize that this matter was already 15 years old and for hearing arguments only more than 16 adjournments were granted. How will the people of this State have a faith in the judicial system if cases are handled in this manner. More than the parties, it is the Presiding Officers of the Court who must share the blame for the unduly long delay which has taken place in : 8 : deciding this matter. If adjournments are granted in this manner cases will never come to an end. The present case itself is an example of a typical legal situation where the generation which filed the suit is unlikely to even see the fruits of the decree. 13. Finally the application for amendment was rejected on 3.1.2009 and thereafter the matter adjourned for hearing arguments and the matter was fixed for arguments on 10.2.2009. From 10.2.2009 five dates were given, i.e. 26.2.2009, 28.3.2009,11.5.2009 and 16.6.2009 when the case was again adjourned for arguments. It was if the learned Judge was waiting for one of the parties to obtain a stay order from the High Court and this stay order was granted finally on 27.7.2009 and even in this Court it took more than a year to serve the respondents. Then counsel who was representing the petitioners ceased to be an advocate and fresh notice was issued to them. Finally, Shri Tara Singh Chauhan put in appearance for the petitioners and still steps were not taken in the registry for service of the respondents. It was only when the matter was brought to the notice of this Court on 23.3.2011 that preemptory orders were passed in the case and the names of the unserved respondents were ordered to be deleted on 26.5.2011. This order was passed since the other family members were already on record and the interest of the : 9 : unserved respondents was duly represented. It was not necessary to serve them again in these proceedings and thereafter this matter was listed for hearing. What answer does the judicial system give to the litigants whose case is pending for more than 18 years and even the first Court has not passed judgment on the same. 14. Coming to the issue involved in the present petition. The present petition is directed against the order whereby the learned Trial Court rejected the application filed by the plaintiffs seeking amendment of the plaint. By means of the amendment the plaintiffs sought to challenge the order dated 16.5.2001 passed by the Settlement Officer, Dharamshala. The learned Trial Court rightly held that such application could not have been filed at this belated stage after the case had been fixed for arguments. 15. Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the amendment should not have been rejected on the technical ground of delay and that it is only after the plaintiffs came to know that this order may affects their rights that the application was filed. This argument is an argument of desperation. If a party is aggrieved by an order, it does not have to wait to see whether the order is going to affect its right or not. The Settlement Officer clearly recorded that the defendants were in possession of the land. The rights of the plaintiffs : 10 : were affected and the plaintiffs could not have been waited for 7 years long to challenge the order. On this ground alone, the application has to be rejected. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition which is rejected. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 27th June, 2011. The Registry is directed to send back the record of the learned Trial Court so as to reach well before the date fixed. The learned Trial Court shall ensure that the arguments are heard in the matter and the same is decided latest by 23rd August, 2011. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge May 30, 2011. (Krn Guleria)