ROSHAN LAL Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment dated 19th May, 2004, I find that the learned court below by correct appreciation of the material on record has rightly passed an order allowing the respondents' application under section 5 of the Limitation Act by condoning the delay of just a few days in filing the appeal in terms of Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of civil Procedure against the order dated 17th September, 2002 passed by the then Sub Judge 1st Class, Bilaspur rejecting the respondents application filed under Order 9 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of the suit dismissed in default on 12th October, 1998.

(2.) THE suit filed by the respondents was dismissed on 12th October, 1998. The application for restoration was filed within two weeks, on 28th October, 1998. It is a pity that the justice dispensation system under which we all are working allowed this application to be protracted for as long a period as four years in as much as such a simple application for restoration of a suit was disposed of exactly four years later, on 17th September, 2002. The learned trial Court adopted a very pedantic approach in dealing with the application for restoration. Otherwise a simple restoration application for restoring a suit dismissed for default of appearance of the plaintiffs could have been, and actually ought to have been disposed of in a very short time, say a couple of months.

(3.) VERY often, in a number of cases, I have noticed a fanciful tendency on the part of the trial Judges to leisurely and pleasurely deal with interlocutory applications filed in pending suits. It is a great travesty of justice and a very grave misfortune of the litigants that the interlocutory applications in pending suits take such a long time for disposal whereas ordinarily and in the normal course these should be disposed of within a very very short time. In normal course and ordinarily in usual circumstances it should not take more a couple of weeks or a couple of months for disposing of these applications. Actually if the restoration applications are filed within the limitation period, or if some other interlocutory applications are filed for the grant of some innocuous or small reliefs, the trial Courts should ignore frivolous and fallacious defences, objections or contests to these applications and should ensure to decide all such applications with utmost expedition. The trial Courts perhaps do not realize that keeping such applications pending for long time, as in the present case for as long as four years, defeats the ends of justice because the disposal of suits gets delayed by that much period.