SANJOGTA JAIN Vs. KEEMTI LAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There cannot be any other better example than the present one of judicial delays. Age-old saying that 'Justice Delayed is Justice denied' is clearly reflected when a reference is made to the file of the trial Court which was summoned by this Court in this revision. By judicial process as well as on account of technicalities of law, a suit that was filed more than twenty years ago is still at the stage of defendants' witnesses. To be precise it may be noted that plaint in the instant case was filed on 10-6-1980 and record of the case further shows that issues were framed on 12-12-1980. Case was ordered to be listed for the first time for plaintiffs' evidence on 14-1-1980 (it should be 1981). After the evidence of plaintiffs was closed on 27-5-1986 case is being listed for defendants' evidence. It is because of such like law's that the people are losing faith in the system which is already over-burdened and may be if this state of affairs continues, day is not far off when it will crack under its own weight. Leaving the matter here only let this revision be dealt with now.

(2.) A suit for specific performance was filed by Keemti Lal Jain and Shashi Pal Jain (Plaintiffs) Respondents 1 and 2 in this revision petition, against Balbir Kumar Jain and Koshalaya Devi Jain (Defendants) Respondents 3 and 4 in this revision petition. As already observed, plaint was filed on 10-6-1980 and this suit is pending trial before the trial Court. Sanjogta Jain, petitioner in the present revision petition, is the daughter of Smt. Koshalaya Devi Jain and sister of Balbir Kumar Jain (defendants). This suit was based on an agreement to sell purported to have been executed by Respondents 3 and 4 on 23-2-1978, whereby the property described in it was agreed to be sold for a consideration of Rs. 18,000/- by them to Respondents 1 and 2 (plaintiffs). Out of the agreed sale consideration according to Respondents 1 and 2 a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was received as an advance. According to Respondents 1 and 2 on the failure of the Respondents 3 and 4 to execute the sale deed in question and get it registered they were constrained to file the suit.

(3.) When this suit was pending trial, Respondents 3 and 4 were called upon to produce their evidence at their own risk and responsibility. Since then also the matter is pending for the evidence of defendants-respondents 3 and 4. Amongst other things, Respondents 3 and 4 were also permitted to examine two of the witnesses who were residing at Kapurthala and Delhi, on open Commission. When the case was in the process of evidence of the Respondents 3 and 4, petitioner Sanjogta Jain filed an application before the trial Court with a prayer for impleading her as a defendant in the suit. This application was contested and resisted by the Respondents 1 and 2, plaintiffs. Trial Court after hearing the parties has dismissed the same vide order dated 10-7-1996, hence this revision by her.