Report No. 14

12. Delays in civil courts.-

Though the position in the civil courts was comparatively better, there were delays in the civil matters also. Witnesses attributed these delays to the inefficiency of the presiding officers of most courts and to lack of devotion to duty on their part and also to the dilatory tactics of the lawyers and the litigants.

13. The process-serving staff attached to courts, it was said, besides being inadequate in strength and amenable to corruption and other undesirable practices are mostly illiterate and cannot submit reports as to the manner of service, the reasons for non-service and similar matters. Very often, trial of suits is delayed on account of the fact that either the defendant is not served properly or. if served, service of summons has not been effected on witnesses.

14. The disposal of civil suits is frequently delayed because when the trial starts the presiding officer does not know what the case is about. The case is not opened and the presiding officers do not previously go through the pleadings and are not seized of the facts of the case. According to a Senior Advocate, very few officers follow the case during the trial. We have not been able to obtain statistics to show the periods for which different categories of proceedings have been pending in the subordinate civil courts. Nevertheless, the accompanying Table (Table No. 2) setting out the year of institution, the date of framing issues, the date of the final disposal and the duration of trial of certain proceedings selected at random shows the delays that occur.

An instance was brought to our notice where a preliminary decree was passed for a sum of Rs. 700 in 1941 and the final decree in 1955. We have been told that interlocutory applications are kept pending for long periods. Most of these delays could be prevented by a stricter and methodical supervision by the High Court and the District Courts. No effective system of inspection seems to prevail at present. A district judge admitted that lack of effective control and supervision by the District Judges was the primary cause for delays in the subordinate courts. The Advocate-General stated that the District Judges do not adhere to the rules prescribed for purpose of inspection of the subordinate courts.

Table No. 2

Table No. 3

15. Our attention was drawn to a rule framed by the High Court to the effect that if a witness summons handed over to a party at his request for service was not served, fresh service would not be ordered a second time. Criticism was also directed against another rule which disallowed from the taxed costs the travelling and subsistence allowance of witnesses attending courts at the request of a party without a summons. Both these rules naturally tend to make parties averse to bringing witnesses without a summons or to serve them themselves-measures which we have earlier recommended to speed up the trial of suits. We recommend the repeal of these rules.

Back

Index

Next