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

Report No. 14

Table No. 5

Statement Showing The Civil Work Done By District Judges, Civil and Session Judges and Civil Judges During The Years 1954-56.

Civil Suits

Small Cause Suits

Miscellaneous Civil Cases

Year

Pending at the beginning of the year

Institutions

Disposals

Balance

Pending at the beginning of the year

Institutions

Disposals

Balance

Pending at the beginning of the year

Institutions

Disposals

Balance

Below one year

Over one year

Below one year

Over one year

Below one year

Over one year

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

District Judge

1954

230

234

230

102

132

..

..

..

..

..

1440

5550

5340

1477

173

1955

234

459

334

248

111

..

..

..

..

..

1650

6287

6051

1585

301

1956

359

974

807

336

190

..

..

..

..

..

1886

6827

6620

1695

398

Civil and Session Judges and Other Corresponding Judges

1954

614

621

674

371

190

1159

4425

3911

1467

206

575

1855

1620

645

165

1955

561

767

648

339

341

1673

4246

3914

1573

432

810

2238

1990

781

277

1956

680

518

755

226

217

2005

3801

4521

878

407

1058

2303

2564

610

187

Civil Judges

1954

3031

8821

8611

2954

26

2419

6404

5808

2452

563

1955

3214

9084

9523

2485

290

3015

7022

7202

2261

574

1956

2775

11217

10352

3356

284

2835

7423

7428

1248

582

Table No. 6

Statement Showing The Criminal work Done by The Courts of Session During The Years 194-56

Session Cases

Criminal Appeals

Criminal Revisions

Year

Pending at the beginning of the year

Institutions

Disposal

Balance

Pending at the beginning of the year

Institutions

Disposals

Balance

Pending at the beginning of the year

Institutions

Disposals

Balance

Below one year

Over one year

Below one year

Over one year

Below one year

Over one year

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

District and Session Judges

1954 953 3960 3960 3273 1535 105 3758 15021 13952 4343 484 1245 3743 3907 1063
1955 1640 3955 3729 1661 205 4827 14364 13795 4814 582 1081 3470 3642 841 68
1956 1910 4332 4023 197 241 5479 14421 13601 5485 814 943 3345 3155 974 159

Civil and Session Judges

1954 857 2941 2642 1003 153 2550 8447 793 2746 319 617 2311 1995 883 50
1955 11556 3222 3107 1049 222 3065 9178 9426 2529 288 933 2343 2310 876 90
1956 1271 3024 2947 1085 263 2817 8684 8612 2344 545 966 1649 1898 617 100

Civil and Assistant Session Judges

1954 413 983 1047 301 48 213 952 952 196 17 .. .. .. .. ..
1955 349 1078 1024 363 40 213 767 826 152 2 .. .. .. .. ..
1956 403 1563 1280 530 156 154 740 757 136 1 .. .. .. .. ..

Note.- These figures have been supplied to us by the High Court of Allahabad.

There are many sessions trials including those for offences punishable under sections 304, 395 or 397, I.P.C. in which no date for disposal can be fixed for at least a year."

Likewise, there is also a very large number of criminal appeals and criminal revisions.

The principal reason for this disheartening state of affairs is undoubtedly the shortage of judicial officers. It would be interesting to compare the judicial strength of Bihar with Uttar Pradesh. The sanctioned strength of subordinate judiciary in Bihar, which has only 17 Districts, is nearly equal to that of U.P., which has 51 districts with a population and area almost twice that of Bihar. Thus the sanctioned strength of Civil judiciary in Bihar is 344 Judicial officers (16 District Judges, 25 Additional District Judges, 71 Subordinate Judges and 232 Munsifs), whereas Uttar Pradesh has a sanctioned strength of 340 Judicial officers (45 District Judges 39 Civil and Sessions Judges and 266 Munsifs and Civil Judges).

The total number of suits filed in the subordinate courts of Bihar in 1954 was only 1,34,123 a large number of which were simple rent suits, whereas in U.P. the number was 1,50,713 one third of which related to immovable property. In addition the number of sessions cases in U.P. was also much larger. There is one civil judicial officer for every 1,12,731 persons in Bihar as against 1,85,928 persons in Uttar Pradesh. Is it not abundantly clear that the concerned authorities who have time and again failed to raise the strength of judicial officers in spite of demands are directly responsible for the sad plight of the administration of justice in the State?



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