‘Lawyers & litigants in no hurry, cases stuck’

NEW DELHI: Case delays — often spanning several decades — occur either because litigants are "not in a hurry" or lawyers take adjournments, states Delhi high court in a controversial reply to an RTI. The court administration has analyzed reasons why original side suits from 1972 onwards are still pending and has concluded that the delay "is not shameful" and can not be attributed to the court.

Responding to criticism leveled at it for sitting on cases filed as early as 1972, the HC has rejected any role in prolonging the cases. In a two-page reply to a letter petition filed by a lawyer, HC has explained that ten of the oldest civil suits pending before it are either partition suits or of a nature where the "adjudicatory process of the courts ends on passing of preliminary decree and responsibility of complying with formalities is of the parties".

"In each of these cases", HC says, "parties for some reason or the other don't appear to be in a hurry." In such cases, the court cannot force the parties, the court adds.

Giving itself a clean chit, the court said that "reasons for delay in other cases also can be diverse". A study of the case files of the 10 oldest civil side suits "show the advocates to be jointly seeking adjournment on a number of dates" even while assuring everyone "the court is fully conscious of the issue and has been continuously endeavoring to expedite the process", it adds.

HC's reply came in response to a letter sent by advocate Manish Khanna who earlier got a list of oldest pending cases through an RTI query. Based on the list, Khanna asked if accountability has been fixed for the delays and who should be held responsible for the niggardly pace at which the cases have dragged on. He also asked if any study has been conducted to analyze the same. The reply from the registrar general's office highlights that cases are still pending because of reasons ranging from non prosecution of a suit, awaiting report of a local commissioner, to parallel mediation proceedings.

The RTI query had brought out in detail the problem of pendency in HC. It had also revealed the court continues to grapple with the issue but is yet to put in place a model case flow system related to management of cases and its prioritization into Track I - Track IV as advised by Supreme Court in a 2005 judgment.

Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang

‘Lawyers & litigants in no hurry, cases stuck’

Dengan url

http://sehatputihgigiku.blogspot.com/2013/04/alawyers-litigants-in-no-hurry-cases.html

Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya

‘Lawyers & litigants in no hurry, cases stuck’

namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link

‘Lawyers & litigants in no hurry, cases stuck’

sebagai sumbernya