CHANDRA PRAKASH OJHA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition furnishes a typical instance of the alarming state of affairs prevailing in the subordinate judiciary in this State.

(2.) THE petitioner had filed an application under Section 263 of the Succession Act praying for cancellation of the order granting probate. In this case altogether 90 dates were fixed by the District Judge and A. D. J., Bareilly, out of which 43 dates were fixed for final hearing. In our opinion this reveals gross negligence and utter callousness on the part of the subordinate Courts. Cases are supposed to be disposed of expeditiously, but it appears that many Judges harass the litigant public by granting adjournments again and again. Whenever the litigant goes to Court he finds that another date has been fixed. In the present case 90 dates have been fixed and yet the case has not proceeded. Annexure -3 to the affidavit in support of this application is copy of the order sheet showing the orders passed on these 90 dates. Many of these orders show that the case was adjourned because the lawyers were on strike.

(3.) WE have also been informed that often on the mere statement of some members of the bar that no adverse order should be passed the cases are adjourned without any good reason.