INDUS TOWER LTD & ORS.  Vs HARISH YADAV & ORS.

CM (M) 38/2021 Page 1 of 7$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 29thJanuary, 2021
+ CM (M) 38/2021 & CM APPLs. 1832-33/2021
INDUS TOWER LTD & ORS. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bindal, Advocate.
(M: 9810801651)
versus
HARISH YADAV & ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Sharma, Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Murari Kumar, Adv. for R-6.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)
1. This hearing has been done by video conferencing.
2. The Petitioners’ grievance in the present petition is that an ex parte
order was passed by the trial court on 17thAugust, 2020 restraining the
construction/erection/installation of a cellular tower over property bearing
no. RZ-1, Khasra No.264 and 268, Village Nasir Pur, Ashok Park, West
Sagar Pur, New Delhi. The Petitioners moved an application under Order
XXXIX Rule 4 CPC before the ld. ASCJ, Patiala House Courts, however,
both the injunction application and the application seeking vacation have not
been heard for several months. On one occasion the trial court had heard the
matter but did not pass orders and the Petitioner no.1 company is incurring
huge expenses, making payments to the Corporation and other authorities
and still unable to make the tower operational.
3. Ld. counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 5, who are the original Plaintiffs
in the suit, appear in the matter and submit that they have not delayed the
2021:DHC:338CM (M) 38/2021 Page 2 of 7matter. Ld. counsel for the SDMC is also present.
4. A perusal of the order sheet of the trial court shows that the matter has
been repeatedly adjourned since August, 2020, after the ex parte order was
granted. Hearing has, in fact, taken place on 16thSeptember, 2020, and a
Status Report has also been filed on behalf of the SDMC. Hearing was again
conducted on 12thNovember, 2020 and the matter was listed for
clarification/order on 20thNovember, 2020. Thereafter, the Judicial Officer
changed and the matter has been adjourned for arguments on various dates.
5. Considering the fact that the Petitioner is expressing an urgency in the
matter and that the applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and
Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC have been pending since August, 2020, it is
directed that the said applications be taken up on 5thFebruary, 2021. After
hearing the parties, orders on both the applications shall be passed by the
Trial Court within a period of 30 days.
6. This Court has repeatedly emphasised that once arguments are heard
by a Court, listing the matter for clarification/order is not permissible, which
is what the judicial officer presiding initially has done in the present case. It
needs no further emphasis that once arguments are heard by the Trial Court,
within a reasonable period, as held ,orders would have to be pronounced.
This has been repeatedly settled by the Supreme Court in Balaji Baliram
Mupade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.
3564/2020, decided on 29thOctober, 2020] as also by this Court in Deepti
Khera v. Siddharth Khera [CM (M) 1637/2019, decided on 18th
November, 2019]. The observations in Deepti Khera (supra) are set out
below:
“6. It is the settled position in law, as per the judgment
2021:DHC:338CM (M) 38/2021 Page 3 of 7of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Rai v. State of
Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 that once matters are reserved
for orders, usually, the same should be pronounced
within a time schedule. In Anil Rai (supra) it has been
observed as under:
“8. The intention of the legislature
regarding pronouncement of judgments can
be inferred from the provisions of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (1) of
Section 353 of the Code provides that the
judgment in every trial in any criminal court
of original jurisdiction, shall be pronounced
in open court immediately after the
conclusion of the trial or on some
subsequent time for which due notice shall
be given to the parties or their pleaders. The
words “some subsequent time” mentioned in
Section 353 contemplate the passing of the
judgment without undue delay, as delay in
the pronouncement of judgment is opposed
to the principle of law. Such subsequent time
can at the most be stretched to a period of
six weeks and not beyond that time in any
case. The pronouncement of judgments in
the civil case should not be permitted to go
beyond two months.”
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Rai (supra)
has also passed certain guidelines regarding
pronouncement of judgments. The same are reproduced
below:
(i) The Chief Justices of the High Courts
may issue appropriate directions to the
Registry that in a case where the judgment is
reserved and is pronounced later, a column
be added in the judgment where, on the first
page, after the cause-title, date of reserving
the judgment and date of pronouncing it be
separately mentioned by the Court Officer
2021:DHC:338CM (M) 38/2021 Page 4 of 7concerned.
(ii) That Chief Justices of the High Courts,
on their administrative side, should direct
the Court Officers/Readers of the various
Benches in the High Courts to furnish every
month the list of cases in the matters where
the judgments reserved are not pronounced
within the period of that month.
(iii) On noticing that after conclusion of the
arguments the judgment is not pronounced
within a period of two months, the Chief
Justice concerned shall draw the attention of
the Bench concerned to the pending matter.
The Chief Justice may also see the
desirability of circulating the statement of
such cases in which the judgments have not
been pronounced within a period of six
weeks from the date of conclusion of the
arguments amongst the Judges of the High
Court for their information. Such
communication be conveyed as confidential
and in a sealed cover.
(iv) Where a judgment is not pronounced
within three months from the date of
reserving it, any of the parties in the case is
permitted to file an application in the High
Court with a prayer for early judgment.
Such application, as and when filed, shall be
listed before the Bench concerned within
two days excluding the intervening holidays.
(v) If the judgment, for any reason, is not
pronounced within a period of six months,
any of the parties of the said lis shall be
entitled to move an application before the
Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer
to withdraw the said case and to make it over
to any other Bench for fresh arguments. It is
open to the Chief Justice to grant the said
2021:DHC:338CM (M) 38/2021 Page 5 of 7prayer or to pass any other order as he
deems fit in the circumstances.
8. The Civil Procedure Code, 1908, prescribes thirty
days as the time in which a judgment should be
pronounced. Order XX Rule 1 of the CPC reads as
under:
“1. Judgment when pronounced . — [(1)
The Court, after the case has been heard,
shall pronounce judgment in an open Court,
either at once, or as soon thereafter as may
be practicable and when the judgment is to
be pronounced on some future day, the
Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of
which due notice shall be given to the
parties or their pleaders:
Provided that where the judgment is
not pronounced at once, every endeavour
shall be made by the Court to pronounce the
judgment within thirty days from the date on
which the hearing of the case was concluded
but, where it is not practicable so to do on
the ground of the exceptional and
extraordinary circumstances of the case, the
Court shall fix a future day for the
pronouncement of the judgment, and such
day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond
sixty days from the date on which the
hearing of the case was concluded, and due
notice of the day so fixed shall be given to
the parties or their pleaders.]”
9. While this Court is conscious of the fact that there
are pressures on the Trial Courts, non-pronouncement of
orders for more than a year cannot be held to be
justified. It has been observed in several matters that
trial courts keep matters `FOR ORDERS’ for months
together and sometimes orders are not pronounced for
even 2-3 years. Thereafter the judicial officer is
transferred or posted in some other jurisdiction and the
2021:DHC:338CM (M) 38/2021 Page 6 of 7matter has to be reargued. Such a practice puts
enormous burden on the system and on litigants/lawyers.
The usual practice ought to be to pronounce orders
within the time schedule laid down in the CPC as also the
various judgements of the Supreme Court. In civil cases
maximum period of two months can be taken for
pronouncing orders, unless there are exceptional cases
or there are very complex issues that are involved.
10. Accordingly, in respect of pronouncement of
orders, the following directions are issued:
i. When arguments are heard, the order
sheet ought to reflect that the matter is part-
heard;
ii. Upon conclusion of arguments, the order
sheet ought to clearly reflect that the
arguments have been heard and the matter
is reserved for orders. If the court is
comfortable in giving a specific date for
pronouncing orders, specific date ought to
be given;
iii. Orders ought to be pronounced in terms
of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Anil Rai (supra);
iv. The order ought to specify the date when
orders were reserved and the date of
pronouncement of the order.”
The above legal position has been repeatedly communicated to judicial
officers, however the practice of listing matters for clarification/order does
not seem to abate. After conclusion of hearing, listing the matter for
clarification/order is not permissible, in a routine manner.
7. Parties to appear before the Trial Court on 5thFebruary, 2021. No
unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to either party.
8. With these observations the present petition, along with all pending
applications, is disposed of.
2021:DHC:338CM (M) 38/2021 Page 7 of 79. Let a copy of this order be sent to the ld. District and Sessions Judge,
Patiala House Courts as also the concerned court of the Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Patiala House Courts. In addition, a copy of this order shall be
specifically communicated by the worthy Registrar General to Dr. Pankaj
Sharma, Additional Senior Civil Judge, Patiala House Court, Delhi.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
JANUARY 29, 2021
dj/T
2021:DHC:338