Supreme Court Dismisses Petition Due to Protracted Delays in Civil Suit: Omdeo Baliram Musale & Ors. vs. Prakash Ramchandra Mamidwar & Ors. (24 January 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 24 January 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 93

Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. and Aravind Kumar, J.

Can a civil suit that has been pending for over four decades, with repeated delays and procedural lapses, be dismissed by the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this issue in a case involving a property dispute, highlighting the unacceptable delays plaguing the Indian judicial system. The Court expressed its exasperation with the protracted nature of the litigation and ultimately dismissed the Special Leave Petition. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar.

Case Background

In 1982, the petitioners filed a suit seeking a declaration that a property belonging to their joint family was wrongly sold by their father through a sale deed in 1980 to third parties. The suit was dismissed for default due to the petitioners’ failure to pay the process fee for serving notice on the legal representatives of one of the defendants. This marked the beginning of a series of delays and procedural missteps that would ultimately lead to the dismissal of the case by the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The suit was initially dismissed due to the petitioners’ failure to pay the process fee. An application for restoration was filed in 1993, which was dismissed by the Trial Court in 2000 on the ground that it was filed under the wrong provision of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). An appeal against this order was dismissed in 2003. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a revision petition in the High Court, which was also dismissed in 2005 due to non-compliance with a peremptory order. Despite the dismissal, the petitioners continued to file applications for restoration, which were also dismissed by the High Court in 2013. Finally, the High Court dismissed another restoration application in 2014, leading to the filing of the Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to the following provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC):

• Order IX Rule 2, CPC: This rule deals with the dismissal of a suit when the plaintiff fails to pay the court fees or postal charges for service of summons on the defendant.
• Order IX Rule 4, CPC: This rule allows a plaintiff to bring a fresh suit or apply for an order to set aside the dismissal if the suit is dismissed under Rule 2.
• Order IX Rule 9, CPC: This rule deals with the situation where the plaintiff’s suit is dismissed for non-appearance, and allows the plaintiff to apply for restoration of the suit.

Arguments

The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments made by either party, but it can be inferred that the petitioners were arguing for the restoration of their suit, citing procedural lapses and delays. The respondents, on the other hand, likely argued against the restoration, highlighting the repeated delays and the petitioners’ failure to follow due process.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific legal issues in the traditional sense. However, the core issue before the Court was whether to allow the restoration of a civil suit that had been plagued by decades of delays and procedural lapses.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any specific cases or books. However, it implicitly relies on the inherent power of the court to manage its proceedings and prevent abuse of the judicial process.

The judgment refers to the following legal provisions:

• Order IX Rule 2, CPC: This rule deals with the dismissal of a suit when the plaintiff fails to pay the court fees or postal charges for service of summons on the defendant.
• Order IX Rule 4, CPC: This rule allows a plaintiff to bring a fresh suit or apply for an order to set aside the dismissal if the suit is dismissed under Rule 2.
• Order IX Rule 9, CPC: This rule deals with the situation where the plaintiff’s suit is dismissed for non-appearance, and allows the plaintiff to apply for restoration of the suit.

Judgment

The following table shows how the submissions made by the parties were treated by the Court:

The judgment does not explicitly cite any authorities. However, the inherent power of the court to manage its proceedings and prevent abuse of the judicial process was used for its reasoning for resolving the issue.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily concerned with the excessive delays and procedural lapses that had plagued the case for over four decades. The Court emphasized that such delays undermine the judicial system’s ability to provide timely remedies to citizens. The Court’s sentiment was one of exasperation and a desire to rectify the situation. The Court noted that the suit had become infructuous due to the passage of time and the repeated procedural missteps.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following:

• The suit was filed in 1982 and had not progressed due to repeated delays and procedural lapses.
• The petitioners failed to comply with court orders and follow due process.
• The suit had become infructuous due to the passage of time.
• The judicial system must ensure timely remedies for citizens.

The Court stated, “The real danger is when we accept this position and continue with it as part of a systematic problem. Until and unless we believe that this situation is unacceptable and act accordingly, the power, authority and jurisdiction of Courts to address simple reliefs of citizens will be consumed and destroyed by passage of time. This is not acceptable at all.”

The Court further observed, “There must be a solution, idea and resolve to rectify this situation and ensure that simple, quick and easy remedies are available to correct an illegality for a rightful restitution.”

Finally, the Court concluded, “Coming back to this case, we have noticed that the suit that was filed in the year 1982 relates to an alleged unauthorized sale by father more than four decades back. The suit has virtually become infructuous for more than one reason. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.”

Key Takeaways

• Protracted delays in civil suits can lead to their dismissal by the Supreme Court.
• Non-compliance with court orders and procedural lapses can be detrimental to a case.
• The judicial system must ensure timely remedies for citizens.
• The Supreme Court is concerned about the systemic issues causing delays in the Indian judicial system.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court will not allow the restoration of a civil suit that has been pending for an unreasonable amount of time due to repeated delays and procedural lapses. This judgment reinforces the importance of timely resolution of disputes and the need for parties to adhere to court procedures. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition in this case, highlighting its exasperation with the protracted delays and procedural missteps that had plagued the civil suit for over four decades. The Court emphasized the need for timely remedies and expressed concern about the systemic issues causing delays in the Indian judicial system. This judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to court procedures and the potential consequences of failing to do so.