ANGELO FERNANDES Vs. S CHAND AND COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Justice delayed is justice denied' is a well known proverb in judicial parlance. Many researches have been made. Commissions constituted, Seminars held. Conferences convened and resolutions adopted to find ways and means to cut delays in order to administer speedy justice, Even legislative amendments in various Acts have been enforced to achieve this object. But nothing appears to have been thought of or effective steps taken to avoid delay, in large number of cases wherein a party succeeds in obtaining a decree but fails to reap the fruits of it in his life time. It has rightly been observed that 'it is easier to obtain a decree, of whatever nature it may be, but difficult to execute if.

(2.) The present case is one of the many examples of the cases falling under the second category. Relevant facts given in chronological order will fully demonstrate the agony being faced by the poor decree holder in getting his dues. Late Dr. J. B. Rajam was the author of three books entitled- ATOMIC PHYSICS', MODERN PHYSICS' & HEAT The defendants M/s. S. Chand & Co. had taken these books for publishing against three separate agreements with Shri Rajam dated 11-2-1957, 3-4-1957 and 7-1-1958 respectively. Dr. Rajam had died on 25-11-1965 leaving behind a will wherein the Archbishop of Delhi was appointed as the Executor. By means of the said WILL Dr. Rajam bequeathed the royalty of his books for charitable, educational and religious purposes. In the year 1966 the Archbishop of Delhi applied for Probate with the Will annexed for realising the arrears of royalties due from the defendant w.e.f, 1.9.1964. The probate was ultimately granted in favour of the plaintiff by the Court of the District Judge, Delhi on 16-9-1970. Before that the defendant agreed to disclose the royalty account to the plaintiff in case he succeeds in obtaining the Probate. After the grant of the Probate many requests and notices were issued to the defendants for rendition of accounts but the defendants did not care to comply with the said requests. The plaintiff ultimately was forced to file a suit for rendition of accounts of the royalties of the estate of the deceased Dr. J. B. Rajam, against the defendants on 4-1-1972. The said suit was hotly contested by the defendant. However, after a lapse of about 5 years the plaintiff succeeded in obtaining a preliminary decree for rendition of accounts from the Court of Shri Ajit Bharihoke, Sub- Judge 1st Class, Delhi on 22-8-1977. Shri 0. P. Gupta, Advocate was appointed as the Local Commissioner to settle the accounts of royalties due to the estate of Dr. Rajam w.e.f. 1-9-1964 till date. The defendants preferred to file the first appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Delhi which was dismissed by the Judgment of Shri Mohd. Shamim, A.D.J. on 11-4-1979. The defendants' second appeal in the High Court met the same fate on 8-1-1980. The defendants' Petition for special leave to appeal was also dismissed by the Supreme Court of India.

(3.) During the course of the proceedings before the learned Local Commissioner the defendants admitted that a sum of Rs. 2,77,544.63 is due for the period 1-9-1964 to 31-7-1973. The plaintiff immediately moved an application under Order 12 Rule 6 Civil Procedure Code for the passing of a decree of the amount which is due to the plaintiff as per the statement of account of the defendants. This application was rejected by the lower court. But in the Civil Revision Petition No. 599/1981, N. N.Goswami, 7. directed the trial court to pass a decree of the admitted amount in favour of the plaintiff. This order was duly complied with by the additional District Judge on 24-1-1982. On the objection of the defenpant/Judgment Debtors the plaintiff paid the court fee on the said amount as far back as 26-4-1982. The defendants/ Judgment debtors even then did not care to pay the said amount inipite of the repeated reminders. The plaintiff ultimately applied for execution of the decree by arrest and detention in civil prison of the defendants on 13-9-1982. The defendants took objection that the decree was without jurisdiction as the Additional District Judge, Delhi could not pass a decree for more than a lakh of Rupees. This objection was over-ruled and the three partners were ordered to be detained in Civil prison by the Order of the executing court dated 4-3-1983. The defendants immediately came to this court and by the consent of the parties the proceedings subsequent to the High Court's order dated 26-10-1981 were quashed and the suit was transferred to this Court by order dated 18-5-1983 of G.C. Jain. J.