NOOR MOHAMMED Vs. JETHANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a democratic body polity which is governed by a written Constitution and where Rule of Law is paramount, judiciary is regarded as sentinel on the qui vive not only to protect the Fundamental Rights of the citizens but also to see that the democratic values as enshrined in the Constitution are respected and the faith and hope of the people in the constitutional system are not atrophied. Sacrosanctity of rule of law neither recognizes a master and a slave nor does it conceive of a ruler and a subject but, in quintessentiality, encapsules and sings in glory of the values of liberty, equality and justice In accordance with law requiring the present generation to have the responsibility to sustain them with all fairness for the posterity ostracising all affectations. To maintain the sacredness of democracy, sacrifice in continuum by every member of the collective is a categorical imperative. The fundamental conception of democracy can only be preserved as a colossal and priceless treasure where virtue and values of justice rule supreme and intellectual anaemia is kept at bay by constant patience, consistent perseverance, and argus-eyed vigilance. The foundation of justice, apart from other things, rests on the speedy delineation of the lis pending in courts. It would not be an exaggeration to state that it is the primary morality of justice and ethical fulcrum of the judiciary. Its profundity lies in not allowing anything to cripple the same or to do any act which would freeze it or make it suffer from impotency. Delayed delineation of a controversy in a court of law creates a dent in the normative dispensation of justice and in the ultimate eventuate, the Bench and the Bar gradually lose their reverence, for the sense of divinity and nobility really flows from institutional serviceability. Therefore, historically, emphasis has been laid on individual institutionalism and collective institutionalism of an adjudicator while administering justice. It can be stated without any fear of contradiction that the collective collegiality can never be regarded as an alien concept to speedy dispensation of justice. That is the hallmark of duty, and that is the real measure.

(2.) Presently to the factual matrix. The respondent initiated civil action by instituting Civil Suit No. 42 of 1990 for injunction to restrain the defendant therein from selling or otherwise transferring the suit land towards the southern side of the house and further to permanently injunct him to make any construction on the land in dispute. After the written statement was filed, a counter claim was put forth by the defendant. Thereafter, issues were framed and the parties adduced evidence to substantiate their respective stands. On 12.9.1997, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan dismissed the suit and decreed the counter claim filed by defendant-petitioner herein. Being grieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the first respondent preferred Civil First Appeal No. 59 of 1997 in the Court of the concerned Additional District Judge, Nohar who, on 10.07.2001 dismissed the appeal. The dismissal of appeal compelled the respondent to file a Civil Second Appeal No. 207/2001 in the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur.

(3.) Be it noted, we have not adverted to the factual controversy and findings returned thereon because advertence to the same is not necessary for our purpose.