AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 14

Table Output of Work Per Year of a Munsif

Year

Average disposal of regular suits (contested and uncontested per head)

Average disposal of small cause suits(contested and uncontested per head)

Average disposal miscellaneous civil cases and petitions per head)

1

2

3

4

1954

275

84

104

1955

271

87

109

1956

290

82

140

Average Output of work per year of a Subordinate Judges

Year

No. of sub-judges doing civil work

Average disposal of regular suits per head

Average disposal of small cause suits per head

Average disposal of miscellaneous civil cases and petitions

Average disposal od civil appeals per head

Average disposal of civil miscellaneous appeals

No. of sub-judges doing criminal work

Average disposal of sessions cases per head

Average disposal of criminal appeals per head

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1954

11

64

146

103

42

6

11

13

Nil

1955

13

68

122

100

42

5

12

8

Nil

1956

14

74

110

102

42

5

9

10

10

Note.- Columns 3,4,6 & 7 include contested and uncontested matters.

It is evident that the average disposal of judicial officers is very low in this State. It is true that some of the munsifs have also been doing criminal work, but that would to some extent be more or less offset by the civil work done by some executive officers. In any case, it is quite apparent that the civil work calls for much greater attention.

12. There are indeed many reasons for the accumulation of arrears in this State. According to latest available Administration Report, 1955 issued by the High Court, the delay of long pending suits is attributable among other causes to the "inadequacy of staff and adjournments necessitated by pressure of work or allowed at the instance of the parties."

13. In considering the need for appointing additional officers it must be remembered that the subordinate civil judiciary has never functioned at its full strength, since 1951, when the permanent strength of the subordinate judiciary was fixed at 46 munsifs and 15 subordinate judges. Even in 1956, the strength of munsifs was only 37, and of subordinate judges only 14. We think that this situation is partly due to the failure on the part of those concerned to appreciate in time the need for the adequacy of judicial strength. Had this been done earlier, much of the present congestion of work could have been easily avoided. It is therefore necessary that the existing vacancies should be filled up quickly so that the arrears may be cleared.

14. Supervision.-

It appears to us, that the low average disposal of the judicial officers, the high average duration of cases and the large pendency of old suits are due in part to the lack of effective supervision on the part of the High Court and the district judges. According to the General Rules and Circular Orders of the High Court, the subordinate courts have to submit periodical returns of the work done by them to the High Court through the district judges and an explanation given for every case pending for more than a year.

Every district judge is also required to inspect annually if possible, but if not, at least once in every 18 months, each of the subordinate civil courts in his district. We find from the administration reports, that quite a fair number of Courts are inspected every year. However rules by themselves are ineffective to ensure efficiency unless they are enforced. There is no point in calling for an explanation unless it is scrutinised and appropriate instructions given. There would appear to be considerable scope for improvement in this direction.

15. Another feature which calls for comment is that there is no systematic distribution of judicial business in the subordinate courts. Ordinarily a munsif should not be expected to handle more than 300 to 400 regular suits at a time, but in Orissa some of the munsifs have to handle 700 to 900 cases at a time. In order to achieve optimum results, we think it necessary that the number of cases, a presiding officer is asked to handle, should be fixed within reasonable limits. We recommend that the work may be redistributed in this manner, by the creation, if necessary, of additional posts so that no judicial officer is overburdened.

16. The congestion is apparently greater in the courts of subordinate judges, who have to do not only original civil work but have also to deal with a large number of civil appeals transferred to them by the district judges for disposal.

They have also to try sessions cases and hear appeals against the orders of second class and third class magistrates as assistant sessions judges. The following statement shows that subordinate judges do a substantial proportion of work of the district and sessions judges.

Courts of Munsifs

Courts of Subordinate Judges

1951-53

194-56

1951-53

1954-56

Institution

9316

8622

5687

4618

Disposal

9589

8592

5432

4744

Pendency at the end of the Period

840

998

852

702

It is necessary that subordinate judges be given some relief from their civil appellate and sessions work if they are to dispose of civil suits within a reasonable time. We have already noticed that munsifs generally exercise jurisdiction upto Rs. 1000 and some selected munsifs are invested with powers to try suits upto Rs. 4000. But, as nearly 88 per cent., of the litigation in the subordinate courts relates to suits below Rs. 1000 and 94 per cent., below Rs. 2000, a mere increase in the jurisdiction of munsifs is not likely to give much relief to the subordinate judges.

17. The position with regard to small cause suits in the courts of munsifs and subordinate judges for the triennial periods 1951-53 and 1954-56 is given below:

Courts of Munsifs

Courts of Subordinate Judges

1951-53

194-56

1951-53

1954-56

Institution

9316

8622

5687

4618

Disposal

9589

8592

5432

4744

Pendency at the end of the Period

840

998

852

702

It will be noticed, that these suits also like original suits, show decreasing institutions and decreasing disposals. The average duration of a contested small cause suit in 1955 was 8 to 9 months in the courts of munsifs and about 12 months in the courts of subordinate judges. This is more than the standard time-limits suggested by us for the disposal of small cause suits, and has to be brought down to the suggested standards.



Reform of Judicial Administration Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys