A regular civil case – whether for recovery of money, declaration of some right over property, eviction of a tenant or even enforcement of an injunction/defamation action – may involve various stages. Firstly, the pleadings or the parties’ respective plaint and written statements on disputes are called for by the civil court. Secondly, the points of determination or the ‘issues’ that arise for adjudication of the civil court upon a perusal of the pleadings of the parties are framed. Thirdly, the stage of ‘evidence’ begins, where the respective parties are called upon to lead witnesses to prove their case. Fourthly, the case is finally argued on the basis of the evidence led and the pleadings filed. Finally, the civil court prepares a final decree/judgment in the case.
The first problem that needs redressal is of simple timelines. Most of the stages of a civil case as described above do not prescribe a definite timeline by which such stage needs to conclude. Even in cases where there is a timeline (say for example filing of a written statement in a non-commercial civil case, i.e. 30 days in the first instance), the CPC does not set out any consequences for non-compliance with such timelines. As a consequence, in most non-commercial civil cases, the litigant who has defaulted on the above timelines usually suffers a paltry sum as costs, without any other adverse consequences. The comfort of not being burdened with adverse consequences is a safe haven for a defaulting party, and adds to the delay in adjudication.
For instance, the CPC provides for a timeline of 15 days (from the date of framing of issues/points of determination) in terms of Order 16, Rule 1 to a party to file its list of witnesses it wishes to produce in support of its case. However, since the CPC does not provide for consequences for not complying with this timeline, courts are usually not inclined to pass adverse orders if a party does not comply.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held, including in Delhi Airtech Services Pvt Ltd v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr, that a legislation needs to prescribe consequences of non-compliance for it to be read as a mandatory provision. It is also in order to meet this judicial test that the CPC needs amendments to (i) firstly provide for stringent timelines at every stage; (ii) consequently, provide for consequences of non-compliance with these timelines, in order to ensure conclusion of a case within a reasonable time.
Source: Barandbench
