VEERAPPA Vs. HALAVVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter had come up for orders before this Court on 13-8-2010, on the note of the registry, reading as under: 2-8-10 Sri P.G. Mogali, Advocate for appellant Sri Vighneswhar S. Shastry for R-1 & R2 Letter for extension of time Letter received from District and Sessions Judge, Haven No 476/10 dated 27-7-2010 stating that this Hon'ble Court in OS No 89/82 request to grant the further extension of six months or one year to dispose of the above said suit for the reasons stated there letter (sic)]. The appeal is allowed before the Hon'ble Mr. DVSKJ on 12-12-08 (sic)]. Post RSA a/w letter for orders before Hon'ble Mr DVSKJ Reg: Extension of time in OS No 89/82. purporting to be for passing orders regarding the letter and this Court had passed the following order on 13-8-2010:

(2.) THIS is a disposed of matter, disposed of in terms of judgment dated 12-2 -2008, allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the Trial Court, but is again listed before the Court today on the letter dated 20-7-2010, addressed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur, which has been forwarded by the district Court Haveri on 27-7-2010, seeking for further extension of time to dispose of OS No 89 of 2002 on the file of that Court, by a further period of six months or one year.

(3.) IT is clarified hereby that stipulation of time limit is only an order in terrorem to impress upon judges in the Trial Courts to dispose of the matter expeditiously, particularly having regard to the fact that by the time the matter gets remanded from the High Court, considerable time will have lapsed since the institution of the suit before the Trial Court and the litigation would have grown in age. In the instant case, I notice that the suit is of the year 1982 and is still to see the light of the day, notwithstanding the caution and warning by this Court Whether time is extended or not, the learned judge of the Trial Court is bound to dispose of the suit and non-extension of time while does not amount to denuding the Court of Jurisdiction, repeated requests for extension would definitely reflect upon the performance of the judge, that too even after time is extended on a couple of occasions, as in this case but the order extending the time for disposal does not absolve the learned Judge of the Trial Court, from the blame of inefficiency.