& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Backlog in the disposal of civil cases

K.M. RASHEDUZZAMAN RAJA
THE subordinate courts are under heavy pressure with the huge volume of pending civil cases. There is acute scarcity of judges in the trial court. After coming of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C) (Amendment) Act 2003 into force the disposal system has got a momentum. Out of fear of penalty the truant force now thinks at least twice to seek an adjournment in the trial. But the trial judges appear with the undone face as most of them are with the charge of extra courts. Now the question arises will the problems be solved just after the appointment of new judges? The answer is a big No. Then what is the real cause of backlog? I have just mentioned only about the partial removal of delay casually happened in the trial. But the cause of delay of a civil suit does not lie only in the trial stage. Whatever be the causes of delay of disposal of a civil suit does not lie only in the trial stage. Whatever be the causes of delay in the trial stage a large part thereof have been removed by the last amendment of C.P.C Yet there is a lot to do by our legislature.
The ward 'Disposal' does not mean only the end of the stage of peremptory hearing of a suit. It includes the ending of a suit in the writing of a judgement and the approval of the same day the higher court. The amendment did not shed light on the hearing stage of the Appellate/Revisional court. The dragging parties are also found to be active here. On the plea of very untenable ground they come with a prayer for adjournament of hearing. The most common ground for such adjournament is the absence of the parties or the unpreparedness of the appointed lawyer most of whom are found to have been maintaining the Appeal/Revision for the years together. But the Amendment did not give the court any power in this stage to bind the parties in completing the hearing with in the specified adjournments. So the conducting lawyers are not found to be as much active in forcing their client to complete the hearing in this stage as were found in conducting the trial.
Such amendment shall also put the higher court in limbo with the huge volume of pending cases. To bring out the courts of such situation the further amendment in the territorial jurisdiction of the courts is required. At present the judges are posted considering the posts of a Judgeship created immemorial period of time ago. But the volume of pending cases in every Judgeship is not the same. So it appears that in some Judgeship the judges are floundering in the sea of pending cases whereas their colleagues are doing well with their minimum number of cases. This unequal pending works are equally liable in creating backlog in the disposal of the cases. To help remove this situation the posting of the Judges should be given against the certain number of pending cases not on the basis of existing posts. A judge can be posted for three years against per 150/200 pending cases.
The provisions of giving additional evidence in the appellate stage are there in the C.P.C Abusing of such provisions are not uncommon in practice. The parties should be brought under bindings in giving additional evidence so that they can not drug the Appeal any more. They must aver in the appeal memo whether they should require the producing of any additional evidence in line with the observations of the trial court, not at their own desire. Only documentary evidence should be allowed to produce here and to avoid
delay the provisions of taking the certified copies of the Registered deeds into evidence without formal prove should be made in law.
The two most time consuming factors in the civil suits proceeding are the service of process and the execution of decree. The time killing in these stages can be minimised by making a provision in law about the service of process by the party himself before filing of the suits/cases as they follow the process in the service of legal notice. The parties can be directed to file the plaint together with the copy of the notice served/the reply given by the other parties/with A/D in the case of the service in other countries. In the present provisions of CPC an execution case can maintain for twelve years filing thrice having three years intervals. But what is harm if provisions are made for execution of decree by the court upon a simple petition filed by the decree holder with in six month of the decree if the same is not an expert one? The holistic vision of the problems can easily remove the backlogs prevailing in the dispensations of civil litigation system. Even the age old Code of Civil Procedure can be replaced by the new Act under the title of the Civil Litigations Act or some thing like that in the light of the experience of the Artha Rin Adalot Ain 2003. The author is Joint District Judge, Sirajgonj.