# CASE DETAILS YASHPAL JAIN v. SUSHILA DEVI & OTHERS

- **Citation:** 2023 INSC 948
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-10-20
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4296 of 2023
- **Bench:** S. Ravindra Bhat, Aravind Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/case-details-yashpal-jain-v-sushila-devi-others-37102
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

Issue for consideration: Whether the impugned order passed quashing
the order dated 13.12.2012 rendered in Civil Revision by the High Court
whereby the order dated 09.05.2012 passed by trial court allowing the
impleadment application fi led by the appellant had been rejected, to be
sustained or set aside; whether any further directions require to be issued
for concluding the proceedings in a time bound manner on account of the
suit pending for trial for past 41 years?
Suit - Suit was instituted by the original plaintiff in 1982 to declare
the sale deed executed by fi rst defendant in favour of defendants No.4 to
32 in respect of the suit properties, to be null and void and for a decree
of possession of the suit properties - Proceedings protracted from 1982
till her demise in 2007 whereafter, several orders were passed by the
courts below, both in original jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction
- Impugned order resulted in rejection of the application fi led by the
appellant to be brought on record as legal representative of the deceased
plaintiff - Sustainability:
Held: Not sustainable - On facts, respondents herein themselves
having fi led an application in WP (M/S) No.342 of 2005 for bringing the
present appellant as the plaintiff 's legal representative in the aforesaid writ
petition and prosecuted the same, refl ects that they were in the acquaintance
of the fact of the present appellant being the legal representative of deceased
plaintiff but yet are attempting to contend that 'MKJ' is to be brought
on record as legal representative of the deceased plaintiff - Further, the
949
defendants cannot be heard to contend that appellant herein had fi led two
affi davits (Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-7) whereunder he had admitted
'MKJ' as the legal representative of deceased plaintiff and as such he cannot
turn around to assert himself to be the legal representative of the deceased
plaintiff , as the affi davits fi led by the appellant does not even remotely
suggest or indicate that he had admitted 'MKJ' being the legal representative
of the deceased plaintiff - On the other hand, said affi davits clearly indicate
that he had only affi rmed and reiterated the fact that he is a signatory to the
Will and nothing more or nothing less - Furthermore, 'MKJ' himself had
fi led an application, accompanied by affi davit before the Revisional Court in
Civil Revision No.2 of 2010, stating that he would not press the application
fi led by him for substitution - This was suffi cient for the High Court to have
accepted the plea of the appellant or in other words, it should have sustained
the order of trial court and ordered for appellant being brought on record as
legal representative of deceased plaintiff - Impugned order set aside - Order
dated 09.05.2012 passed by the Trial Court as affi rmed in Civil Revision
No.4 of 2012 vide order dated 13.12.2012, affi rmed - Further directions
issued - Judicial Delay . [Paras 12, 14-16]
Directions by Supreme Court - Judicial Delay - Certain litigations
initiated more than 50 years back still pending - Data from National
Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), three oldest civil and criminal cases noted
- Factors behind Judicial Delays, enumerated - Steps taken to curb
Judicial delay, historical outlook - Reasons for delay in civil trial -
Discussed - Case Flow Management System Rules - Chief Justices
of High Courts where said Rules are yet to be framed, requested to
take immediate steps to formulate such rules - State-wise pendency
of cases before the respective High Courts and overall Civil Courts
as on 16.10.2023; stage-wise pendency also stated - Requests made to
the Chief Justices of the High Courts - Directions issued to the trial
courts to ensure that speedy justice is delivered - Further directions for
implementation of the said directions to be issued from time to time, if
necessary - Secretary General to circulate the copy of this judgment
to the Registrar General of all the High Courts for

## Text

_Characters 0–39,880 of 78,079. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39880 for what follows._

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 948 : 2023 INSC 948
948
CASE DETAILS
YASHPAL JAIN
v.
SUSHILA DEVI & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 4296 of 2023)
OCTOBER 20, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the impugned order passed quashing
the order dated 13.12.2012 rendered in Civil Revision by the High Court
whereby the order dated 09.05.2012 passed by trial court allowing the
impleadment application fi led by the appellant had been rejected, to be
sustained or set aside; whether any further directions require to be issued
for concluding the proceedings in a time bound manner on account of the
suit pending for trial for past 41 years?
Suit - Suit was instituted by the original plaintiff in 1982 to declare
the sale deed executed by fi rst defendant in favour of defendants No.4 to
32 in respect of the suit properties, to be null and void and for a decree
of possession of the suit properties - Proceedings protracted from 1982
till her demise in 2007 whereafter, several orders were passed by the
courts below, both in original jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction
- Impugned order resulted in rejection of the application fi led by the
appellant to be brought on record as legal representative of the deceased
plaintiff - Sustainability:
Held: Not sustainable - On facts, respondents herein themselves
having fi led an application in WP (M/S) No.342 of 2005 for bringing the
present appellant as the plaintiff 's legal representative in the aforesaid writ
petition and prosecuted the same, refl ects that they were in the acquaintance
of the fact of the present appellant being the legal representative of deceased
plaintiff but yet are attempting to contend that 'MKJ' is to be brought
on record as legal representative of the deceased plaintiff - Further, the
949
defendants cannot be heard to contend that appellant herein had fi led two
affi davits (Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-7) whereunder he had admitted
'MKJ' as the legal representative of deceased plaintiff and as such he cannot
turn around to assert himself to be the legal representative of the deceased
plaintiff , as the affi davits fi led by the appellant does not even remotely
suggest or indicate that he had admitted 'MKJ' being the legal representative
of the deceased plaintiff - On the other hand, said affi davits clearly indicate
that he had only affi rmed and reiterated the fact that he is a signatory to the
Will and nothing more or nothing less - Furthermore, 'MKJ' himself had
fi led an application, accompanied by affi davit before the Revisional Court in
Civil Revision No.2 of 2010, stating that he would not press the application
fi led by him for substitution - This was suffi cient for the High Court to have
accepted the plea of the appellant or in other words, it should have sustained
the order of trial court and ordered for appellant being brought on record as
legal representative of deceased plaintiff - Impugned order set aside - Order
dated 09.05.2012 passed by the Trial Court as affi rmed in Civil Revision
No.4 of 2012 vide order dated 13.12.2012, affi rmed - Further directions
issued - Judicial Delay . [Paras 12, 14-16]
Directions by Supreme Court - Judicial Delay - Certain litigations
initiated more than 50 years back still pending - Data from National
Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), three oldest civil and criminal cases noted
- Factors behind Judicial Delays, enumerated - Steps taken to curb
Judicial delay, historical outlook - Reasons for delay in civil trial -
Discussed - Case Flow Management System Rules - Chief Justices
of High Courts where said Rules are yet to be framed, requested to
take immediate steps to formulate such rules - State-wise pendency
of cases before the respective High Courts and overall Civil Courts
as on 16.10.2023; stage-wise pendency also stated - Requests made to
the Chief Justices of the High Courts - Directions issued to the trial
courts to ensure that speedy justice is delivered - Further directions for
implementation of the said directions to be issued from time to time, if
necessary - Secretary General to circulate the copy of this judgment
to the Registrar General of all the High Courts for being placed before
the respective Chief Justices for consideration and suitable steps being
taken. [Paras 18, 19, 21-26, 27-31, 33, 34]
YASHPAL JAIN v. SUSHILA DEVI & OTHERS
950
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
All India Judges Association v. Union of India [2002] 2 SCR 712 :
(2002) 4 SCC 247; T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal & Another AIR (1977)
4 SCC 467; Kailash v. Nanku [2005] 3 SCR 289 : (2005) 4 SCC 480; Serum
Advocates Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs Union of India, [2005] 1 Suppl.
SCR 929 : AIR 2005 SC 3353; Bharat Kalra v. Raj Kishan Chhabra (2022)
SCC OnLine SC 613; Salem Bar Association v. Union of India [2002] 3
Suppl. SCR 353 : AIR 2003 SC 189 - referred to.
Shoraj Singh v. Charan Singh (2018) SCC OnLine All 6613; M.
Mahalingam v. Shashikala ILR Karnataka 4055 - referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4296 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2019 of the High Court of
Uttarakhand at Nainital in WPMS No. 144 of 2013.
Appearances:
Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Sr. Adv., Anurag Kashyap, Mrs. Mona K.
Rajvanshi, Advs. for the Appellant.
Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Sushil Kumar Dubey, Advs. for the
Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
ARAVIND KUMAR, J.
PREFACE
1. Even after 41 years, the parties to this lis are still groping in the dark
and litigating as to who should be brought on record as legal representative
of the sole plaintiff Mrs. Urmila Devi (hereinafter referred to as 'Urmila
Devi' for the sake of brevity). This is a classic case and a mirror to the fact
that litigant public may become disillusioned with judicial processes due
951
to inordinate delay in the legal proceedings, not reaching its logical end,
and moving at a snail's pace due to dilatory tactics adopted by one or the
other party. The said suit, OS No.2 of 1982, was instituted for the relief to
declare the sale deed, executed by Shri Mangal Singh (hereinafter referred
to as 'fi rst defendant' for the sake of convenience) in favour of defendants
No.4 to 32 in respect of the suit properties described in the plaints schedule
as item No.1 to 8, to be null and void by claiming to be the owner of the said
properties; and for a decree of possession of the suit properties with costs.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:
2. When the aforesaid suit was still at infancy stage the sole-plaintiff
expired on 18.05.2007. One Mr. Manoj Kumar Jain fi led an application
to substitute him as her legal heir, by placing reliance on the Will dated
19.05.1999 and claiming to be a legatee under the said registered Will. He
also fi led an affi davit stating thereunder that Mr. Yashpal Jain (hereinafter
referred to as 'appellant' for the sake of convenience) was a witness to
the said registered Will. The defendants objected to the said application
contending inter alia that the appellant herein was the adopted son of late
Urmila Devi by relying upon the adoption deed dated 06.01.1973 duly
registered in the offi ce of the Sub-Registrar. In the said proceedings, the
present appellant also fi led an affi davit stating thereunder that he was a
witness to the Will dated 19.05.1999 executed by Urmila Devi in favour of
Manoj Kumar Jain. The application fi led by Manoj Kumar Jain came to be
allowed by order dated 24.02.2010.
2.1 Being aggrieved by the said Order the legal heirs of the fi rst
defendant namely, legal heirs of Mangal Singh, fi led a Civil Revision No.2
of 2010 before the District Judge which came to be allowed by setting aside
the Order of the Trial Court on the ground that applicant had stated during
the course of the revisional proceedings that he would not press the said
application and as such directed the Trial Court to consider the application
fi led by Yashpal Jain-appellant herein and permitted him to fi le an application
seeking condonation of delay along with the application to bring on record
the legal representatives of the sole plaintiff , since he had failed to do so
earlier. Accordingly, revision application came to be allowed by order
dated 02.12.2011 and Mr. Yashpal Jain fi led an application before the Trial
Court for condoning the delay in fi ling such application and also prayed
YASHPAL JAIN v. SUSHILA DEVI & OTHERS
[ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]
952
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
for abatement of suit to be set aside. The learned Trial Judge vide Order
dated 09.05.2012 allowed the application by setting aside the abatement
and permitted Yashpal Jain to be substituted as legal representative of late
Urmila Devi.
3. At this juncture, we would like to point out that a careful perusal of
the application and the orders passed by the courts below would indicate that
the parties and the courts below seem to have proceeded on the footing that
they were to adjudicate the rights of a legal heir which if seen in the light
of expression used in the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to
as 'CPC') is impermissible, as it is not referable to 'legal heir' but 'legal
representative' as defi ned under Section 2 (11) which reads:
"Legal representative" means a person who in law represents the
estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles
with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a
representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on
the death of the party so suing or sued.
On the death of a party to the suit it is the legal representative who is/
are entitled to prosecute the proceedings and, in law, represent the estate of
the deceased. The legal representative who is brought on record not only
includes a legatee under a Will but also an intermeddler of the property
who would be entitled to sue and to be sued and/or continue to prosecute
the proceedings. This vital aspect seems to have been lost sight of by the
courts below conveniently.
4. Be that as it may, the aforesaid Urmila Devi who claimed to be
Bhumidar and owner in possession of land situated in village Sonargaon,
Patti Katulsyun, District Garhwal, Uttarakhand has contended in her suit
that the suit schedule properties were looked after by Mangal Singh- the fi rst
defendant and as he had fraudulently obtained a Bhumidar Sanad of the land
comprising No.77, 3/16 Nalis, she had fi led an application under Section
137-A of UP Act No.1 of 1951 before the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector,
Pauri Garhwal, challenging the said Bhumidari Sanad obtained by the fi rst
defendant, which was held in her favour by the Tehsildar, and confi rmed
by the appellate authority. Not being satisfi ed with the said order, the fi rst
defendant had fi led a second appeal before the Revenue Board which came
to be allowed in favour of Mangal Singh, against which a review petition
953
was fi led thereon by Urmila Devi which came to be allowed on 30.08.1982.
The said order was challenged before the High Court of Uttarakhand in
Writ Petition (M/S) No.342 of 2005 (old No.14655 of 1983) by Mangal
Singh. In the said proceedings a substitution application came to be fi led
by the legal representative of Mangal Singh stating thereunder that Yashpal
Jain (appellant herein) is the legal representative of deceased Urmila Devi
and prayed for his name to be substituted. The said application came to be
allowed vide order dated 24.02.2012 and appellant herein was substituted
as the legal representative of Urmila Devi in writ proceedings. There is no
further challenge to said order or in other words, it has attained fi nality.
5. As already noticed hereinabove, appellant herein fi led an application
for substitution as legal representative of the original plaintiff -Urmila
Devi along with an application for condoning the delay in fi ling said
application and to set aside the abatement. The said application came to be
allowed vide Order dated 09.05.2012. Being aggrieved by the said order,
the Legal Representatives of Mangal Singh fi led Civil Revision No.4 of
2012 before the District Judge who affi rmed the Order of the Trial Court
and dismissed the Revision Petition by Order dated 13.12.2012. The legal
representatives of Mangal Singh fi led WP No.144 of 2013 before the High
Court challenging the Orders dated 09.05.2012 and 13.12.2012 passed by
the Trial Court and the Revisional Court, respectively. The High Court
allowed the writ petition by quashing the impugned orders and rejecting
the application of the appellant herein, thereby restoring the original order
dated 17.05.2008 wherein Manoj Jain had been ordered for being substituted
as legal representative of late Urmila Devi on the strength of the registered
Will dated 19.05.1999 propounded by him with a direction to conclude the
proceedings within a period of 9 months. Being aggrieved by the same, the
present appeal has been fi led.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES
6. We have heard the arguments of Ms. Rachna Srivastava, learned
Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellant and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad
Goyal, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents.
7. It is the contention of Ms. Rachna Srivastava, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the appellant, that the High Court committed
a serious error in upsetting the findings of the Trial Court and the
YASHPAL JAIN v. SUSHILA DEVI & OTHERS
[ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]
954
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
Revisional Court whereunder the discretionary power was exercised
by condoning the delay while setting aside the abatement and allowing
the application of the appellant herein to be brought on record as legal
representative of deceased Urmila Devi; the High Court erred in not
considering the fact that courts below had recorded a clear finding
that appellant herein was the sole surviving legal representative of
the deceased plaintiff and as such it ought not to have interfered
with the well-reasoned order passed by the Trial Court as affirmed
by the Revisional Court; She would also contend that defendants in
this suit who were the writ petitioners in WP(M/S) 342 of 2005 (old
number 14655 of 1983) had substituted the appellant herein as legal
representative of Urmila Devi in dispute related to the suit schedule
property (involved in OS No.2 of 1982) and as such defendants cannot
be permitted to take stand contrary to same. Hence, it is contended that
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
8. Per contra, Shri Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents, supports the impugned order and
contends that in the Writ Petition No.144 of 2013, appellant herein who
was a party therein had not filed a counter-affidavit and as such High
Court had recorded that non-traversing of petition averments would
amount to admission and had also taken note of the fact that appellant
herein had filed an affidavit before the Trial Court on 25.10.2008
whereunder he has accepted the Will dated 19.05.1999 executed by
deceased Urmila Devi and thereby supported the stand of Manoj
Kumar Jain being the legal heir of Urmila Devi. He would also draw
the attention of this Court to yet another affidavit dated 21.08.2009
filed by the appellant himself in OS No.2 of 1982 whereunder he has
again supported the Will dated 19.05.1999 or in other words, supported
the substitution of Shri Manoj Kumar Jain as legal representative
of deceased Urmila Devi. Hence, he contends there is no illegality
committed by the High Court. It is further contended that appellant
was having knowledge of OS No.2 of 1982 and as such he cannot plead
ignorance for the delay. Lastly, challenging the adoption on the ground
that same cannot be the basis for the appellant herein to be brought on
record, he has sought for rejection of this appeal.
955
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and after
bestowing our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions
raised at the Bar, we are of the considered view that following points would
arise for our consideration:
(i) Whether the impugned order dated 28.11.2019 passed in Writ
Petition (M/S) No.144 of 2013 quashing the orders dated 13.12.2012
rendered in Civil Revision No.4 of 2012 by the High Court whereby the
order dated 09.05.2012 passed by trial court allowing the impleadment
application fi led by the appellant herein had been rejected, is to be
sustained or set aside?
(ii) Whether any further direction or directions requires to be issued
for concluding the proceedings in a time bound manner on account of
Suit No.2 of 1985 pending for trial for past 41 years?
(iii) What order?
RE: POINT No.(i)
10. It is not in dispute that Smt. Urmila Devi had instituted a suit O.S.
No.2 of 1982 against Mangal Singh and others in respect of suit schedule
properties as described in the plaint schedule for declaring the sale deeds
executed by Mangal Singh in favour of defendant Nos.4 to 32, as mentioned
in Plaint Schedule 1 to 18, as null and void; and during the pendency of
the said suit the plaintiff - Smt. Urmila Devi expired on 18.05.2007. On
her demise Mr. Manoj Kumar Jain fi led an application on 17.05.2008
for substitution as her legal heir and claiming right legatee under the
Will dated 19.05.1999. This application was followed by an affi davit of
the appellant (Yashpal Jain) dated 25.10.2008 stating thereunder that his
mother Urmila Devi had executed a Will dated 19.05.1999 in favour of
Manoj Kumar Jain and also stating thereunder that Will was duly registered.
The legal heirs of the defendant objected the said substitution contending,
inter alia, that the present appellant is the adopted son of Urmila Devi
and said adoption deed was duly registered on 06.01.1973 in the offi ce of
the Sub-Registrar. It was also contended that Shri Rajendra Prasad Jain
was the holder of power of attorney of Urmila Devi and on his (Rajendra
Prasad) death on 18.02.2001, she had executed another power of attorney
YASHPAL JAIN v. SUSHILA DEVI & OTHERS
[ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]
956
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
on 21.04.2001 appointing Virender Kumar Jain and on the basis of the same
the name of his wife came to be mutated in respect of the lands indicated
thereunder. Hence, it was contended that Will propounded by Manoj Kumar
Jain was fabricated and forged. Hence, it was prayed that claim of Manoj
Kumar Jain for being substituted as legal representative of Urmila Devi is
liable to be rejected. Yet another affi davit was also fi led by the appellant on
21.08.2009 reiterating the contents of the earlier affi davit dated 25.10.2008.
In other words, it was contended that Manoj Kumar Jain was not the legal
representative of Urmila Devi.
11. The learned trial judge allowed the application by order dated
24.02.2010 for substitution by condoning the delay with costs and directed
substitution of Manoj Kumar to be the legal representative of deceased
plaintiff Urmila Devi.
12. The aforestated order dated 24.02.2010 came to be challenged
by legal representatives of Mangal Singh in Civil Revision No.2 of 2010
which resulted in same being allowed vide order dated 02.12.2011 and the
order of the trial court dated 24.02.2010 was set aside by taking note of
the fact that Manoj Kumar Jain had stated in his application 27/C along
with affi davit that he would not press the substitution application. The
appellant was granted liberty to fi le an application for impleadment as
a party before the lower court. In this background appellant herein fi led
an application for substitution as legal representative of Urmila Devi and
this application came to be fi led on 05.12.2011 along with application for
condonation of delay and to set aside abatement, which was opposed by
the legal representatives of the fi rst defendants by fi ling objections and
contending that application fi led by Yashpal Jain is not maintainable. After
hearing the learned Advocates appearing for the parties learned trial judge
by a detailed order dated 09.05.2012 condoned the delay and allowed the
application of the appellant to be brought on record as legal representative
of the deceased-plaintiff Urmila Devi. This order came to be affi rmed by
order dated 13.12.2012 in Civil Revision No.4 of 2012 fi led by the legal
representatives of Mangal Singh.
13. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that during the life time
of Urmila Devi an application came to be fi led under Section 137-A of
U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 before Tehsildar/Assistant Collector, Pauri Garhwal
957
contending that the Bhumidari Sanad had been obtained by Mangal Singh,
with reference to land comprising Nos.77, 3/16 Nalis, by adopting forgery,
which came to be accepted. The appeal fi led by Mangal Singh before the
Assistant Collector against the order of Tehsildar did not yield any result,
which gave rise to fi ling of a Second Appeal before the Revenue Board
culminating in said appeal being allowed in favour of Mangal Singh. The
Review Petition fi led against the order of the Second Appellate Authority
came to be allowed and this was challenged by Mangal Singh in WP (M/S)
No.342 of 2005 (Old No.14655 of 1983). During the pendency of the said
writ petition, as noticed earlier, Urmila Devi expired and an application for
substitution came to be fi led by the very same legal representatives of Mangal
Singh (who are Respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein) vide Annexure P-10, specially
pleading thereunder to delete the name of Respondent No.4 (therein) Smt.
Urmila Devi and substitute Yashpal Jain (appellant herein) in her place. This
application came to be allowed by order dated 24.02.2012 as refl ected in
Annexure RA/2 annexed to the rejoinder affi davit of the appellant. In this
view of the matter, it cannot be gain said by the respondents herein that the
appellant is not to be substituted as legal representative of deceased Urmila
Devi. It is for this cogent reason, the learned trial judge vide order dated
09.05.2012 allowed the substitution and permitted the appellant herein to be
substituted as legal representative of deceased plaintiff -Urmila Devi. Rightly
so, this order of the trial court came to be affi rmed by the Revisional Court
vide order dated 13.12.2012. It would be apt and appropriate to note at this
juncture and at the cost of repetition that Manoj Kumar Jain, who had initially
fi led an application for substitution which came to be allowed by the trial
court by order dated 24.02.2010, which order was carried in Civil Revision
No.2 of 2010 and in the said proceedings an application came to be fi led by
said Manoj Kumar Jain stating thereunder that he does not intend to press
the application fi led by him for being substituted as legal representative of
Urmila Devi. This fact also persuaded the Revisional Court to remand the
matter back to the trial court vide order dated 02.12.2011.
14. In this factual scenario, the defendants cannot be heard to
contend that appellant herein had fi led two affi davits (Annexure P-5 and
Annexure P-7) whereunder he had admitted Manoj Kumar Jain as the legal
representative of deceased Urmila Devi and as such he cannot turn around to
assert himself to be the legal representative of Urmila Devi, for the simple
YASHPAL JAIN v. SUSHILA DEVI & OTHERS
[ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]
958
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
reason that affi davits fi led by the appellant Yashpal Jain does not even
remotely suggest or indicate that he have admitted Manoj Kumar Jain
being the legal representative of Urmila Devi. On the other hand, said
affi davits which has been perused by us, would clearly indicate that he
has only affi rmed and reiterated the fact that he is a signatory to the said
Will and nothing more or nothing less.
15. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents herein, have also contended that on account of non-traversing
of the writ petition averments the contents thereof are to be presumed
true and correct, though seems to be an attractive proposition at fi rst
brush, it cannot be accepted for the simple reason that consent does not
confer jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the records would clearly indicate
that Manoj Kumar Jain himself had fi led an application, accompanied
by affi davit before the Revisional Court in Civil Revision No.2 of 2010,
stating thereunder that he would not press the application fi led by him for
substitution and this was suffi cient for the High Court to have accepted
the plea of the appellant or in other words, it should have sustained the
order of trial court and ordered for appellant being brought on record
as legal representative of deceased Urmila Devi.
16. At the cost of repetition, it requires to be noticed that
respondents herein themselves having fi led an application in WP (M/S)
No.342 of 2005 for bringing the present appellant (Yashpal Jain) as her
legal representative in the writ petition (M/S) 342/2005 and prosecuted
the same, would refl ect that they were in the acquaintance of the fact that
present appellant being the legal representative of deceased Urmila Devi
but yet are attempting to contend that Manoj Kumar Jain is to be brought
on record as legal representative of Urmila Devi. In this background
the impugned order which has resulted in rejection of the application
fi led by the appellant to be brought on record as legal representative of
Urmila Devi if sustained would result in the estate of deceased plaintiff
not being represented, as a consequence of which suit would abate or
would be put to a silent death by the defendants without claim made in
the suit being adjudicated on merits. Hence, point No.(i) is answered
in favour of the appellant and against respondents and therefore, the
impugned order is set aside.
959
17. As far as the question of right of the appellant over the suit schedule
properties, we are of the view, by virtue of adoption propounded, it is an
issue which would be at large before the learned trial court and the veracity
of the Will dated 19.05.1999 alleged to have been executed by Urmila Devi
in favour of Manoj Kumar Jain, is to be decided in appropriate proceedings
and as such we desist from expressing any opinion in that regard and
contentions of both parties are kept open.
RE: POINT No.(ii)
18. Case papers on hand would disclose that dispute between the
parties relates back to 02.02.1982 the date of institution of the suit
No.2/1982 by the original plaintiff Smt. Urmila Devi. As to the stage of the
suit namely, as to whether trial has commenced or otherwise, the material
available before this court are silent but the fact remains that proceedings
have got protracted from 1982 till demise of Urmila Devi on 18.05.2007
and thereafter it has moved at a snail's pace or in other words, the litigation
seems to have not been taken to its logical end for reasons best known.
The death of the original plaintiff opened up a fl ood of litigation and as a
result of it, several orders came to be passed by the courts below, both in
original jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction, which also reached the
High Cout and ultimately before this Court by the present proceedings. The
cause for delay has been myriad. It is for this reason we have expressed
our anguish at the beginning of this judgment as to likelihood of litigant
public getting disillusioned of justice delivery system due to delays. It
would be apt to note that certain litigations initiated more than 50 years
back are still pending. As per the data extracted from National Judicial
Data Grid (NJGD), we have noted hereinbelow the three oldest civil and
criminal cases:
TOP 3 PENDING CIVIL CASES
1. West Bengal
(a) Civil Judge Senior Division, Malda - Partition Suit No.30 of
1952 - registered on 04.04.1952
(b) Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Medinipur - Other Suit No.39 of 2017
-registered on 15.09.1953.
YASHPAL JAIN v. SUSHILA DEVI & OTHERS
[ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]
960
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
2. Uttar Pradesh
Civil Judge, Junior Division, Varanasi - Original Suit No.319 of
1953 - registered on 02.07.1953
TOP 3 PENDING CTRIMINAL CASES
(1) Maharashtra
(a) Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati - R.C.C. No.2319 of
1959 - registered on 11.04.1959
(b) CJJD & JMFC Mehkar - R.C.C. No.61 of 1960 - registered
on 06.10.1959
(c) Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati - R.C.C. No.778 of 1961
- registered on 30.08.1961
The Underlying factors behind Judicial Delays
19. The causes of delay are numerous loopholes in the law itself,
redundant and voluminous paper work, absence of the witnesses,
adjournments sought and granted for no justifi able reason as also delay in
service of summons, lack of implementation of the provisions of Code of
Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') and Code of Criminal
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C'), as the case may be. These are
only illustrative and not exhaustive. It is not that there has been any lack of
eff ort to speed up the Justice Delivery System. However, the attempts made
hitherto have yielded limited results. Time and again various provisions of
C.P.C. and Cr.P.C. have been amended to cater the ever-increasing demands
for speedy disposal of cases and the results are not inspiring. There is an
urgent need to take pro-active steps to not only clear the huge backlog of
cases at all levels but there should be introspection by all the stakeholders to
gear up to meet the aspirations of the litigant public who would only seek for
speedy justice and to curtail the methods adopted to delay the proceedings
which may suit certain section or class of the litigant public. When millions
of consumers of justice fi le their cases by knocking at the doors of the courts
of fi rst instance, they expect speedy justice. Thus, an onerous responsibility
vests on all stakeholders to ensure that the people's faith in this system is not
eroded on account of delayed justice. It is imperative to note that about 6 per
cent of the population in India is aff ected by litigation, in such a scenario the
961
courts would play an important role in the life of a nation governed by Rule
of Law. Peace and Tranquility in the society and harmonious relationship
between the citizens are achieved on account of eff ective administration
of justice and its delivery system, even the economic growth of a country
is dependent on the robust Justice Delivery System which we have in our
country.
20. When the effi ciency has become the hallmark of modern civilization
and in all spheres of life there is an urgent need to hasten the pace of delivery
of justice by reducing the time period occupied by the trial of suits and
criminal proceedings as also the off shoots of such litigation which results
in revisions, appeals etc. arising out of them.
A historical outlook of steps taken to curb the Judicial delay
21. The issue of delay has been bothering all the stakeholders for
ages. Way back in the year 1924, a committee was constituted known as
the Civil Justice Committee to enquire into the issues relating to changes
and improvements necessary to bring in "more speedy, economical and
satisfactory dispatch of the business transacted in the courts" under the
chairmanship of Justice Rankin. Delay in disposal of cases beyond a period
of two and a half years was a crucial concern and it was emphasized by the
said Committee that "where the arrears are unmanageable, improvement
in the methods can only palliate. It cannot cure".1 The Central Government
under the chairmanship of Justice S.R. Das set up a committee known as High
Court Arrears Committee in the year 1949. In 1979, the Law Commission
of India in its 77th Report on 'delay and arrear in trial courts' observed that
the delay in civil or criminal matters have decreased the confi dence among
the general public about the judicial system. It was emphasized that civil
cases should be treated as lapsed if the matter was not disposed of within
one year from the date of registration, whereas a criminal matter should
be disposed within six months and in case of sessions trial it should not
go beyond one year. It was also suggested to timely fi ll up the vacancies,
appoint additional and ad-hoc judges and increase overall judicial strength.
Some of the key recommendations of the Committee were:
1
Civil Justice Committee, 1924
YASHPAL JAIN v. SUSHILA DEVI & OTHERS
[ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]
962
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
"(i) Improvement of judicial system to meet modern requirement
of society.
(ii) Time for scrutiny of the cases should not take more than one week.
(iii) Summons and notices should be attached with the plaint at the
stage of fi ling, without stating the fi ling date.
(iv) Procedural reforms in civil and criminal case proceedings."
22. The 79th reports of the Law Commission of India pertains to
"Delay and Arrears in High Courts and Appellate Court" which when
read along with the 77th report as aforementioned, has provided a stepby-step manual for managerial judging, prescribing upper time limits for
trial procedure to ensure speedy disposal of cases to be followed by Trial
Courts, High Courts, and other appellate courts. Its recommendations
range from ways in which judges should expedite the service of summons
to the drafting of the decree and includes the suggestions that they should
become more active in conciliation eff orts. Other notable recommendations
include:
"(i) Appointment of administrative justices who supervise the work
of process servers;
(ii) Fixing of dates should be done by presiding offi cer and not
readers, cases should deliberately not be fi xed when the prospects
of them being taken up for low and a standard of number of cases
pending before courts should be decided and whenever there are
indications that the number of cases will go beyond the standard,
additional courts should be set up."
23. The 120th Law Commission Report on 'Manpower planning
in judiciary: a blueprint' recommended that the most eff ective way to
overcome the heavy pendency of cases clogging on the judicial system is by
reducing judicial delay. It further states that the judiciary is overburdened
by large number of cases fi led each year, which clog an already stressed
system. The report states that in 2002, when the ratio of the judges
to population was 13 judges to 10,00,000 people, the Supreme Court
recommended, in All India Judges Association vs. Union of India (2002)
4 SCC 247, to increase the ratio to at least 50 judges per 10,00,000 people.
963
24. The Malimath Committee, constituted on Reforms of Criminal
Justice System, suggested multiple recommendations in its report, for
Criminal Justice System, however some of them can be applied even in
the civil litigation:
1.
Time limit for fi ling written statements, amendments of pleadings,
service of summons etc., must be prescribed.
2.
So far as possible, parties must endeavor to decide or to settle
the cases outside the court and to carry out the same objective,
Section 89 in CPC, was introduced.
3.
To record the evidences by issuing the Commission instead of
by presence before the court of law. For the purpose of the same
under Section 75 of the CPC, commission can be issued for
collecting evidence.
4.
Time frame need to be provided for oral argument before the
court of law.
5.
Restriction on Right of appeal.
25. Similarly, the Delhi High Court undertook a pilot project titled
''Zero Pendency Court Project Report'2 whereunder 22 specifi c pilot and
reference courts were referred to collect data to examine meticulously the life
cycles of the legal cases. At its core, the project sought to understand how
the cases progressed through the legal system in the absence of any backlog.
The Data collected from the pilot project led to suggestions of some major
recommendations which included, primarily, the assessment of Judicial
strength, which as per the report, is regarded as a vital attribute to the cause
of delay. The report in this regard suggested to arrive at an optimal judge
strength to handle cases pending in diff erent court and went on to provide the
Ideal number of judges for diff erent court. The report also highlighted that
in criminal cases, prosecution evidence hearings accounts for the Highest
percentage of court hearings however when it comes to allocation of time,
the courts tend to dedicate more minutes to fi nal arguments and the issuance
2
The Inspiration for the project was a remark by Justice M.N. Venkatachalaih (former
CJI) in a conversation with Justice Ravindra Bhat, one of the members of the State
Court Management System Committee (SCMS) of the Delhi HC.
YASHPAL JAIN v. SUSHILA DEVI & OTHERS
[ARAVIND KUMAR, J.]
964
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
of fi nal orders. In civil cases, miscellaneous hearings are common, but fi nal
order proceedings receive more time nevertheless, judges allocate a greater
amount of time to the fi nal order or judgment hearings.
26. Melvin M Belli, a member of the California Bar, in his article titled
"The Law's Delays: Reforming Unnecessary Delay in Civil Litigation",
which was prepared as a project for the Belli society, has noted "Trial delays
or the period of the American Legal System". The backlog of the system
has become so typical that a plaintiff has to wait 5 years for trial of a simple
personal injury claimed. In case, if there is an appeal, a fi nal disposition of
the case may occur 10 years after plaintiff has been injured and the following
factors were outlined as the major contributors to the delay:
(i) The ineffi cient management of the court system by the judiciary.
(ii) A Tremendous increase in litigation.
(iii) The philosophy of procrastination of many judges and lawyers, and
(iv) The priority of criminal or civil cases on the court calendar.
To tackle the aforesaid problems, the following remedial measures
were suggested as possible solutions:
1) Appointment of surrogate judges (auditors, referees, judges pro
tempore) to handle certain cases. The idea of using surrogate judges is
to avoid unnecessary adjudication under formal trials. This is followed
in Massachusetts, where court appointed auditors or referees, who
were practicing attorneys, used to adjudge motor vehicle tort cases.
They report their fi ndings of facts and conclusions to the court and
the parties may accept the auditor's report as fi nal or request a trial. If
the case goes to trial, the auditor's fi ndings are prima facie evidence
and may be read to the jury.
2) The imposition of interest accruing retroactively from the time of
incident, rather than from time of judgment, to remove defendant's
incentives to delay.
3) The elevation of civil cases to parity with criminal cases so that
civil cases will not be usurped.
4) A requirement that judges set defi nite trial dates and honor them, so
that litigation cannot be delayed by one of the attorneys.
965
DELAY ON ACCOUNT OF PROCEDURAL LAWS
27. At the outset, it is necessary to point out the reasons for delay in
civil trial namely:
(i)
Absence of strict compliance with the provisions of CPC;
(ii)
Misuse of processes of the court;
(iii) Lengthy/prolix evidence and arguments. Non-utilization of
provisions of the CPC namely Order X (examination of parties
at the fi rst hearing);
(v)
Non-Awarding of realistic cost for frivolous and vexatious
litigation;
(vi) Lack of adequate training and appropriate orientation course to
judicial offi cers and lawyers;
(vii) Lack of prioritization of cases;
(viii) Lack of accountability and transparency.
28. Apart from the above reasons, the other vital reasons include the
over-tolerant nature of the courts below while extending their olive branch
to grant adjournment at the drop of the hat and thereby bringing the entire
judicial process to a grinding halt.