Reforming civil justice in Karnataka: Case management for speedy disposal

To facilitate the speedy disposal of cases, the Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Bill, 2024 to amend the CPC was recently passed by the Karnataka Legislative Assembly.

A key change introduced by the Bill is the introduction of case management hearings for civil cases, akin to those in commercial courts. Effective case planning can help bring certainty in day-to-day hearings and ensure steady progress, which in turn can empower the judiciary to dispose of cases effectively and in a timely manner.

Most of the changes introduced by the Bill appear to be inspired by the Commercial Courts Act. While the new provision relating to case management expects the court to set dates for each case within which certain progress in the case must be made, such as recording of evidence, filing of written statements and hearing of oral arguments, the Bill also lays out timelines for arguments and evidence.

Additionally, the Bill also contains a provision that penalises parties for failure to comply with an order issued by the court in a case management hearing. Under this provision, parties may be penalised by imposing costs or by excluding the right of the non-compliant party to file affidavits, cross-examine witnesses, present arguments, etc. If the non-compliance is considered to be wilful or repeated, the Bill also empowers the court to dismiss the plaint.

With respect to timelines set by the Bill, the proposed provision requires that arguments in civil cases be concluded within 24 months from the case management hearing. While this may be a reasonable goal, the Bill also requires oral evidence to be recorded on a day-to-day or weekly basis, as far as possible, until all witnesses have been cross-examined.

According to the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) as on January 11, 2025, in Karnataka, there are 2,82,844 pending civil cases at the stage of witness examination. Ensuring timely taking of evidence in these cases is a challenge that the judiciary will need to address to implement the vision of the Bill.

One solution to prioritise cases in this regard could be to focus on old cases as a starting point. For example, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy’s report, Differentiated Case Management for the Indian Judiciary: A Framework for Extremely Delayed Cases provides insight into how such cases can be prioritised and how the judiciary’s existing CIS software can be used to effectively schedule hearings in such cases.

Given the serious consequences that can follow for parties who fail to comply with the time limits set in a case management hearing, it is important that the judiciary hold itself accountable and ensure that consistent case hearings are made possible. The scientific scheduling of hearings must be attempted so that the timelines set by the courts through case management hearings are adhered to and do not remain a mere paper order.

Technology can also be used to ensure that hearings remain as effective as possible by minimising ineffective hearings where advocates appear only to ask for adjournments. It is well known that Order XVII Rule 1 of the CPC regarding not granting more than three adjournments to a party in a case is not being followed.

The proposed amendment through the Karnataka Bill goes a step forward with respect to limiting the granting of adjournments and requires that “the overall duration of three adjournments shall not exceed 30 days". Keeping a manual record of the duration of adjournments is a tedious task and is best automated to ensure that prompts are given to judges or court staff during hearings to ensure that adjournments are granted keeping in mind the calculated duration. In addition, information about the parties requesting adjournments and the reasons for the adjournments must be recorded to ensure that the progress of cases is not stalled without sufficient reason.

According to the NJDG, the main reason for delay in civil cases in Karnataka is ‘counsel not available’. If data on the reasons for adjournments and the party behind the adjournments is adequately recorded in the CIS, it would be possible to effectively implement the proposed changes and reduce delays in civil cases.

The Supreme Court’s vision for Phase III of the eCourts Project was to build an efficient and transparent judicial system by leveraging the benefits of technology integration. Scientific listing of cases is one of the areas that the apex court envisions as a step forward in building an efficient judiciary. While legal changes brought through the Bill are a welcome step to ensure the speedy disposal of cases, changes made to the law have to be accompanied by necessary adoption of technology at a systemic level to bring these changes to fruition.

Shruti Naik is a Senior Resident Fellow at JALDI (Justice, Access & Lowering Delays in India), Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.