Forty Years of Adjournments Violate Right to Speedy Trial: Rajasthan High Court Issues General Mandamus to Revenue Courts

The petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Rajgarh, District Alwar on 06.07.1981 (para 3). A receiver appointed in 1981 was removed on appeal in 1985, and the Board of Revenue upheld that in 1986 (paras 4-5). In a writ petition of 1999, the High Court directed the SDO on 13.09.2002, with both sides' consent, to decide the suit within five months (para 6). The petitioners closed their evidence on 27.05.2003, and the suit has stayed at the defendants' evidence ever since; it was transferred to the SDO, Reni in 2019 (paras 7-8). The petitioners sought a direction to decide it within six months (para 9).

The Court called it a glaring example of misuse of the process of law: the petitioners took two decades to close their evidence and the defendants had sought time for twenty more years, so both sides were responsible for the delay (paras 2, 10). No litigant may abuse the CPC, and a party cannot run the trial at its leisure or decide when evidence is led (paras 10-11). Relying on Shiv Cotex, Noor Mohammed and Ishwarlal Mali Rathod, it held that routine adjournments affect the justice delivery system and litigants' confidence in it (paras 12-14, 20). The 2002 direction to decide the suit within five months had gone uncomplied with for more than two decades (para 8). All subordinate courts must follow the Supreme Court's directions in Yashpal Jain on summons, written statements, ADR, issues, day-to-day trial and costs (paras 16-19). Speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and it had been grossly violated; the suit was moving at a ‘snail’s pace’ (paras 21-22). Similar directions were needed for revenue courts, where suits, appeals and revisions stay pending for decades (paras 25, 27).