Abdication of judicial duty: MP High Court raps trial court for non-speaking order
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently made strong observations against a trial court judge for passing a non-speaking order, noting that such conduct demonstrated a classic instance of abdication of judicial duty [Parameshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Suresh and ors].
The trial court had dismissed certain applications filed by a litigant after noting that the case files were in complete disarray and on finding that the litigant had failed to appear before it in time for a hearing.
The High Court, however, took a dim view of this turn of events. Justice Alok Awasthi observed,
"Perusal of the impugned order reveals that prima facie an illegality has been committed by the Trial Court. He has passed a non-speaking order, which demonstrates a classic instance of abdication of judicial duty. It is the duty of the Court staff to properly arrange the file and the Presiding Officer ought to have control over the Court staff. It cannot be a reason for rejecting the applications of any party. It is not the fault of the party that Court's file is not arranged properly."
The High Court proceeded to quash the trial court's April 21 order and ordered the trial court to decide on the applications pending before it within 60 days.
The matter concerned certain applications filed by the litigant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which allows the substitution of parties to a civil suit or the deletion of parties who were wrongly added to the case.
The trial court had earlier directed the litigant/ plaintiff to appear before it at 12 PM on April 21 to examine these applications. However, on the said date, neither the plaintiff nor their counsel was present at the fixed time. After waiting till 1.55 PM, the trial court proceeded to dismiss their applications, after also noting that the case files in the matter were in complete disarray.
The trial court order further recorded that multiple applications under various provisions of the CPC and Evidence Act were pending but not taken up because of the disorganised state of the case files.
This order was challenged by the plaintiff before the High Court, on the ground that the trial court had dismissed their applications in a clerical manner without first hearing the plaintiff.
On September 15, the High Court granted the plaintiff relief by quashing the trial court's earlier dismissal of their applications.
The High Court emphasized that the organisation of case files is the duty of court staff and that a Presiding Officer (trial court judge) must exercise control over them.
The Court held that a litigant's applications cannot be rejected merely due to disorganized files as parties cannot be penalised for such lapses.
"Trial Court is directed to decide all the pending applications on their own merits after perusing the record and giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order ... A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court for necessary compliance. A copy of this order be also sent to the concerned Principal District Judge for information," the High Court added.
Advocate Utkarsh Joshi appeared for the petitioner (plaintiff before the trial court).
Advocate Mradula Sen appeared for the respondent.
[Read Order]