S.K.SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri H.N. Shukla, learned Advocate, who appeared in support of this writ petition and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 17 -2 -2005 (Annexure -31 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad. There is further prayer that respondent No. 1 be directed not to proceed with the application (Annexure -27 to the writ petition) and proceedings on that application be dropped. Before I proceed to deal with the matter this has to come on the record that learned Advocate argued the matter for more than an hour inspite of indication that matter in issue is not such for which argument may stretch for such a long span. This was only with the purpose that we are already overburdened with large number of cases arising out of final order passed by the Courts below which are pending since years and years and therefore, learned advocates are also to take care and they are to be vigilant to note that where to shop. Normally the Court do not stop a Counsel from arguing the matter in his own way as it is the liberty of the learned advocate to proceed according to his own way of placing the issue but take a case that writ petition is filed against a interlocutory order i.e. deciding some application or disposal of an issue at an intermediary stage in a particular manner and the proceedings before the Court below are not final then certainly the Court is also to see that by giving liberty of argument of hours and hours, the precious time which is primarily meant for the litigants is not consumed for no justification. Now time has come to speed up the things with a view of speedy disposal of the cases which is the need of the day for which the Court expects co -operation from every corner and specially the advocates who assist the Court in disposal of the cases. Now in the changing time if we do not join hands and improve justice delivery system litigants for whom we are here, may not excuse us. Old system of lengthy arguments on any kind of issue, now cannot fit in for the simple reason that people want result. We should not forget that number of cases, now a day stood multiplied thousand times. Now everybody has become viligant about his rights and some times the Courts have also started interfering in small and pity matters and thus people have started approaching the Law Courts even if there may not be any lawful justification. There is another reason to approach the Courts. We all know about our system in which everybody is living. In what manner and to what extend people are able to get justice, but for intervention of the Courts, is not secret to any body. In the aforesaid backdrop if we of not think to occupy Courts time really on genuine matters and in the matters in which final rights of the parties are at stake then it will be too harsh on everybody. Thus it again to be emphasized that in petty matters, and in the cases arising out of interlocutory orders it is for the learned Advocates to have some restraint to stretch the argument to a limit and not to go on arguing for hours and hours just like the matter which arises of final judgment. Thus now respective load will have to be shared by the learned advocates also with the Court. Before parting with this issue, I may say that this Court may not be misunderstood that observation in this respect has any reflection on the liberty of a learned advocate who is to argue the case before the Court but this is high time to think over the matter in the public interest that while arguing a case, he was to stop when and where?
(3.) THE comment on the role of learned Advocates as made above finds strong approval from the observation as made by the Apex Court as far back as in 1986 in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd. and Ors. reported in AIR 1986 SC 1370. The kind of observation as made by the Apex Court in 1986 gains more importance to the present days and it is now the right time that it is to be followed in its true sense as about 18 years has further passed when observation from Apex Court came and now the litigation stood multiplied beyond comprehension. The caution by way of suggestion as given by the Apex Court is to be quoted here for the benefit of everybody concerned with the issue: “In the case before us, as if to befit the might of the financial giants involved, innumerable documents were filed in the High Court, a truly mountainous record was built up running to several thousand pages and more have been added in this Court. Indeed, and there was no way out, we also had the advantage of listening to learned and long drawn -out intelligent and often ingenious arguments, advanced and dutifully heard by us. In the name of justice, we paid due homage to the causes of the high and mighty by devoting precious time to them, reduced, as we were, at times to the position of helpless spectator. Such is the nature of our judicial process that we do this with the knowledge that more worthy causes of lesser men who have been long waiting in the queue have been blocked thereby and the queue has consequently lengthened. Perhaps the time is ripe for imposing a time limit on the length fit submission and page limit on the length of judgments. The time is probably ripe for insistence on brief written submissions backed by short and time - bound oral submissions. The time is certainly ripe for brief and modest arguments and concise and chaste judgments. In this very case we heard arguments for 28 days and our judgment runs to 181 pages and both could have been much shortened. We hope that we are not hoping in vain that the vicious circle will soon break and that this will be the last of such mammoth cases. We are doing our best to disentangle the system from a situation into which it has been forced over the years by the existing procedures. There is now a public realisation of the growing weight of the judicial burden. The co -operation of the bar too is forthcoming though in slow measure. Drastic solutions are necessary. We will find them and we do hope to achieve results sooner than expected. So much for sanctimonious sermonizing and now back to our case.”;