Ravi S.Dhavan - (1.) THE petitioner, Mr. Dewakar, arguing his matter in person, seeks review of the order of this Court in Contempt Application No. 323 of 1990, Dewakar v. R. P. Pandey, Vlllth Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar. THE order of this Court is dated 18th April, 1990.
(2.) NOTWITHSTANDING whether a review application against a final order deciding a contempt application is maintainable or not, yet this Court is considering the review application and deciding it on merits. It appears that the applicant filed an application before the learned Additional District Judge, aforesaid, with a copy of the final order of this Court dated 18th April, 1990. The learned Additional District Judge required the applicant to place before him the copy of the Contempt Petition instead of taking up the matter on merits on the next date fixed. This step taken by the learned Additional District Judge has given an occasion to the applicant to come to this Court again by seeking three prayers from this Court. The prayers made in the review application are :- (1) to direct the learned District Judge, Muzaffarnagar to get his case (the matrimonial suit) otherwise pending before the Vlllth Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, disposed of on day to day basis within 30 working days; (2) to get the case decided on merits without prolonging the trial on account of frivolous applications moved by any party ; and (3) to direct the learned District Judge to send weekly compliance report to the High Court till the conclusion of this case. At the outset, this Court declares that it will not be able to accept any of the prayers which the applicant has made to this Court.
(3.) REQUIRING the court below to proceed with the trial day-to-day and determine it within 30 working days, is a time schedule which no Court can keep in to-day's context. This aspect already finds noticed in the final order of this Court dated 18th April, I9y0. This Court had already declared that with strikes which close the courts, the courts alone cannot be held responsible to keep to a time schedule which otherwise the public accepts from a public justice system and only a normalcy of a situation can demand strictness from a court adhering to take up proceedings on the day so fixed. The court had already made an observation that the order sheet which had been placed by the petitioner along with the contempt petition revealed that proceedings in the district courts at Muzaffarnagar were collapsing on various dates because lawyers struck work. In these circumstances, it could not be said that the learned Additional District Judge had committed any contempt because he could not adhere to the strictness on a direction of mandamus by the High Court to determine the trial within four months. The court indicated to the petitioner that even if he expected this court to keep to a certain time schedule in a parricular case, this court is in no different position than any other court in the state as there is no situation which happens in the district court which does not happen in this High Court. The applicant observed to the court that he is aware that a few days ago upon a strike the court had required an explanation from the committe of the lawyers to explain on how they had brought themselves, consequent upon a resolution to abstain from court and to require the Judge to rise and leave court. The court had upon hearing the representatives of the Bar, reserved orders.;