# case as possible. If the record along with the copy of judgment is not received by the

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 13
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1977-01-22
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 13
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/case-as-possible-if-the-record-along-with-the-copy-of-judgment-is-not-received-163178
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

166
C.L. No. 13 dated 22nd January, 1977

To expedite information about the decision of cases in the Court it has now been
decided that an intimation about the disposal of a case be sent as soon after disposal of a
case as possible. If the record along with the copy of judgment is not received by the
District Judge within a month of the receipt of information about the disposal of the case,
he may write to the Registrar demi- officially in the matter.
Shunning frequent adjournments
C. L. No-35/2007: Admin 'G' Dated: 29 August, 2007.
With exalted aim of bringing perceptible improvement in administration of Civil
Justice System the Hon'ble court has viewed with serious concern the practice of
granting frequent adjournments on insignificant grounds by subordinate courts and has
desired suitable instructions to be issued urging them to avoid frequent adjournments.
Therefore,
In
continuation
of
the
marginally quoted Circular Letters and
General letter, I am directed to say that in
a bid to ameliorate the Civil Justice
System adjournments be avoided to be
given on baseless flimsy grounds by the court.
I am therefore to request you to kindly bring the contents of the Circular Letter to
the notice of all the Judicial Officers working under your supervisory control with an
instruction to make strict compliance to the same in letter and spirit.
8.
EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF CASES
C.L. No. 65 dated 31st October, 1962
In order to avoid accumulation of old cases, the tendency of leaving such cases as
are of complicated nature involving lengthy arguments, recalcitrant witnesses,
voluminous documents and intricate law points and taking up only such cases as are short
and convenient for heavy disposal should be deprecated. The Court would like to impress
upon the officers that while passing remarks on their outturn these facts are also taken
into account and consideration is given to disposal of old and complicated cases.
The Court has, after due consideration of all aspects of the question, decided that
the following procedure should be followed by all concerned:
(1)
Presiding Officers should make concentrated efforts to reduce the arrears in
all categories of cases as soon as possible.
(2)
Officers should be instructed by the District Judge to do their proper share of
work and follow the instructions given by him.
(3)
Cases should be taken to be ̳old' according to the following time schedule:-
(a)
Regular suits in Munsifs and Civil Judges Courts- More than a year
old.
(b)
Small Cause Suits-More than three months old.
(c)
Regular Civil and Revenue Appeals-More than six months old.
1- C.L. No. 22/VIII-b-13 dated 28th March, 1949
and C.L. No. 61/VIII-h-13 dated 29th May, 1972
2- Letter No. 2586/ 2004 dated Feb. 19th, 2004
167
(d)
Miscellaneous Civil Appeals- More than three months old.
(4)
At the beginning of each quarter all officers should draw up a plan for
disposal of old suits and cases chronologically and send a copy thereof to the
District Judge to enable him to suggest modifications, if any, and to see, when
inspecting the diaries and when scrutinizing the returns whether the
programme was adhered to and, if not, whether reasons for departure were
sufficient
(5)
Out of the pending cases the District Judge, at the beginning of each quarter,
should be in a position to decide tentatively as to how many and which classes
of cases are to be transferred to different courts. The transfer should, as far as
possible, be made then to subordinate courts to formulate their plan. The
current institution should continue to be transferred in the normal course to the
junior officers. Where there is more than two officers of the same class at least
one of them usually, the junior most should be entrusted with the disposal of
current cases so that new institution may not in their turn become old.
(6)
The District Judge should call for and examine the diaries of subordinate
courts from time to time. At the headquarters this should be possible at short
intervals. He should furnish necessary guidance in the matter of arrangement
and point out shortcomings where they exist.
(7)
Adjournment in old and explanatory cases should not be granted as a matter of
routine and should be an exception rather than the rule. In an old case ready
for hearing, if an adjournment becomes unavoidable, it should not be unduly
long and should be granted in consultation with the lawyers with a specific
understanding that no further adjournment will be granted on the next date
fixed and in case of illness of lawyer already engaged, arrangement for
another lawyer appearing in his place will be made.
(8)
Interlocutory matters should be disposed of expeditiously and proper attention
should be given to final decree proceedings.
(9)
A list of old cases which are not ready for hearing on account of proceedings
for service of substitution etc., being in progress should be prepared and
brought up to date and placed every fortnight before the Presiding Officer who
must scrutinize it and pass necessary orders to expedite the proceedings. Such
lists should be examined by the District Judge also at the time of inspection of
the court.
(10) In disposing of cases the subordinate courts should give top priority to the
cases categorised above. New cases should not be taken up unless the old
cases are disposed of or there are reasons to be recorded in writing on the
order sheet for doing so. Along with the monthly returns, a certificate should
be submitted to District Judge that no preference was given by subordinate
courts to the new cases over the old cases.
In achieving the above target resort should not, however, be taken to methods
involving rash or sketchy orders being passed in undue haste and quality not be
sacrificed at the altar of quantity.
168
C.L. No. 104/IVh-36 dated 16th June, 1976

To ensure expeditious disposal of civil cases, following instructions are issued for
guidance of and compliance by, the presiding officers.
(1)
Parties shall have the responsibility of bringing any witness required to
give evidence or to produce documents.
(2)
(a)
Hearing of a suit should be continued from day to day until all the

witnesses in attendance have been examined. It should not be

adjourned unless necessary for exceptional reasons to be recorded.
(b)
The court may record statements of witnesses who are present,

even if the party or his pleader is not present.
(3)
Costs imposed in connection with adjournment should be deposited in the
court. It should, however, be paid after the disposal of the cases.
(4)
The judgment recorded by the Presiding Officers in civil cases should be
precise and not prolix. It should deal with essentials and be argumentative.
C.L. No. 8/IV-f-80 Admn. (A) dated 18th February, 1981
(1) The District Judge should keep a close watch on the Diaries of the Munsifs directing
them not to grant adjournments for more than a week after the case is ripe for
hearing.
The cases adjourned for one week should be carried over and fixed in the
next week, except, of course, in genuine cases in which a longer adjournment is
needed. While granting longer adjournments, the officer should record in brief the
reasons thereof.
(2) Too many cases should not be fixed in a day's cause list to avoid harassment to the
litigants coming from distant places. The Presiding Officers should adopt such
means as may lead to minimize the duration of disposal of cases.
(3) Special attention should be paid to the disposal of older cases.
 C.L. No. 185/VII f-50 dated 20th November, 1976

District Judges should impress upon all judicial officers, the necessity of deciding
cases in general and rent control matters in particular, involving the serving armed forces
personnel on priority basis. And, adjournments must not be granted indiscretely.
C.L. No. 157/VII -d-180 dated 21st December, 1971
Cases requiring early hearing may be disposed of expeditiously. Pauper
applications should ordinarily be decided within one year and miscellaneous matter like
tenants's applications for repairs etc; under U.P. Rent Control Act even in lesser time.
C.L. No. 96/IV h-36 dated 27th May, 1977
―Proceedings arising out of matters such as succession, guardianship, matrimony,
rent control, ceiling, payment of wages, Forest Act & Motor Vehicles Act, should
not be treated miscellaneous proceedings, but at par with regular suits or appeals,
as the case may be, and given priority.‖