IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1052 of 2008(M/S) United Hotels(P) Ltd. …… Petitioner Versus Nirmal Jeet Singh and others …… Respondents …….. Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. T.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.K.Bist, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.S.Bhandari, Advocate for respondents 2 to 4. Hon’ble V.K. GUPTA, C. J. This case presents a saga, a sordid tale of how a litigation undecided for more than 3½ decades cam bring ridicule to the institution of judiciary and lower the estimation of the majesty of justice in public perception. Litigation started 3½ decades back through the medium of a civil suit in a trial Court has yet not crossed the hurdle of the suit itself being disposed of by the Trial Judge in which more than 4596 Interlocutory Applications have already been filed, mostly by the defendants in the suit. 2. This is also one of the few cases in the country, which adversely reflect upon the malady and evil of protracted litigation between rival parties. Even though it is commonly known that litigation takes very long time to conclude in our country, this case presents a gory picture of very very unduly long delay. The suit has been pending disposal in the trial Court itself now for more than 34 years. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs in the year 1974 and the litigation, despite having covered the distance of 34 years uptil now, has not crossed even the first hurdle of disposal by the trial Court. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 in the Court that in these 34 years in the chequered history of the case, more than 4596 Interlocutory Applications, were filed, mostly by the defendants in the suit, who are the tenants of the property in question. 3. In the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, perhaps umpteenth time by the defendants, order dated 05.05.2008 is under challenge. The learned trial Court by passing this order has rejected 2 the application filed by the petitioner for permission to the petitioner to pay Court fee. It appears that vide order dated 16.03.1982 with respect to and arising out of Issue no. 20, the learned trial Court had passed a direction upon the defendants to value the claims arising out of Issues 16, 17 and 18 and to pay ad valorem Court fee thereupon. The relevant extract of the order dated 16.03.1982 reads thus: “Issue No. 20:- The defendants claim adjustment against the expenses claimed on account of plaintiffs taking food and enjoying the amenities of the hotel and also because of there illegal disposal from a large portion of the building. Adjustment is claimed on account of expenditure incurred in contesting municipal appeals against assessment on behalf of the plaintiffs. The question is whether the claim of adjustment can be entertained or investigated without payment of adverum court fee of the same. I think not. The claim does not arise out of the same transaction. It is not ascertained. That being so, the defendants have to value it to pay advelrum court fee for the same. The issue is decided in negative. Order In view of the finding on issue no. 20, defendants shall value these claims and pay advelarum court fee on the same by 31.3.1982 failing which they shall not be permitted to lead evidence and agree on this point. No extension of time for the purpose shall be permitted.” 4. As is evident this order was pre-emptory in nature and had no scope as far as extension of time is concerned. Yet, on 01.05.1982, the Court vide its order passed on that date clarified that adverse consequences qua the defendants would follow because of non-compliance of the order dated 16.03.1982. The order dated 01.05.1992 reads thus: “ 1.5.1982. Sri L. D. Bhatia for the plaintiffs, Sri R.K.Gupta for the defendants. Court fees not paid as per order dated 16.03.1982. Consequences shall accordingly follow.”. 5. On this petition coming up today for consideration, the learned counsel for the parties submit and agree that the petition be finally disposed of at the motion hearing stage today itself without admitting it to hearing and the following agreed order be passed. I order accordingly: 3 (i) The impugned order is upheld in its entirety. (ii) The order dated 16.03.1982 related to and arose out of issue no. 20 only and no other issue. Issue no. 20 by itself being an issue with respect to payment of Court fees on the amounts claimed by the defendants in the suit for adjustment related to and arose from out of issues 16, 17 and 18 and no other issues. Since the petitioner did not admittedly comply with the order dated 16.03.1982, which was a preemptory order, on 01.05.1992 the consequences, as a natural corollary followed. As on 01.05.1982 itself, therefore, the defendants in the suit, stood precluded from arguing on issues 16, 17 and 18. 6. At this stage, Mr. Alok Singh, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that he has apprehension in his mind that the impugned order dated 05.05.2008 may not be construed as if to prevent the petitioner from raising arguments with respect to the matters covered by Issues 24, 26 and 27. 7. I have carefully perused these three issues and am fully convinced and Mr. V.K.Bist, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4, agrees with me that these three issues (Nos. 24, 26 and 27) have nothing to do with issue no. 20 or for that mater issues 16, 17 and 18 and that these issues did not come within the ambit and purview of the order dated 16.03.1982 or the order dated 01.05.1982 and for that matter the impugned order dated 05.05.2008. There is, therefore, no impediment whatsoever in the petitioner being able to argue on issues 24, 26 and 27, because these issues never related to any adjustment of claim and, therefore, there never arose any question of defendants paying any Court fee ad valorem or otherwise on these three issues. 8. Because of the aforesaid, Mr. Alok Singh, seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition, but with the liberty to the petitioner to argue on all issues except issues 16, 17 and 18. 9. Prayer allowed. 10. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn. 4 11. At this stage, Mr. V.K.Bist, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4, has drawn my attention to the two orders dated 21.09.2006 and 21.03.2007 passed by this Court. According to him, the petitioner and other defendants in the suit are doing everything possible to delay the disposal of the suit. Mr. Bist wants me, by way of reiteration of the aforesaid two orders, to issue binding directions upon the learned trial Court to take all possible steps to expeditiously dispose of the suit finally. 12. The parties agree that the evidence in the suit by the parties is over and that no more, further or additional evidence, is required to be adduced by any party in the suit. Mr. V.K.Bist, the learned Senior Counsel for respondents 2 to 4, submits that the plaintiffs’ arguments also stand concluded and the defendants have to argue the case. It is stated that the suit is posted in the Court for tomorrow for defendants’ arguments. Acceding to the prayer of Mr. Bist about the expeditious disposal of the suit, I issue the following binding directions qua the learned trial Court as well as all the parties in suit:- (I) The defendants shall start their arguments tomorrow. (II) The case shall be taken up on day to day basis. On every day, two hours shall be devoted by the learned trial Court for hearing arguments in this case. The hearing of the arguments on day to day basis shall continue until the arguments are concluded. (III) No fresh application by any party, interlocutory in nature or otherwise, shall be entertained except an application for substitution of L.Rs. of a deceased party, if needed, if a death of a party occurs hereafter. (IV) Immediately after the arguments are over, to the best extent possible, the judgment shall be pronounced by the trial Court. This Court shall appreciate if the Judgment is pronounced in the month of July, 2008. (V. K. Gupta, C. J.) 01.07.2008 A