'Life Is Short, Litigation Infinite': Rajasthan High Court Orders Disposal Of 63-Year-Old Revenue Case, Warns Of Action For Delay

The Rajasthan High Court ordered disposal of a 63-year-old revenue case in 3 months without any adjournments, holding that in case of failure by the Presiding Officer of revenue court directions will be issued to higher authorities to take appropriate action against the officer including adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report.

While recording “harsh reality of the system prevailing in Revenue Courts Administration System”, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the sole reason for such long pendency was the practice of seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Court held that this situation and work culture had to be changed to move away from unnecessary adjournments.

“…human life is short and finite, whereas litigation is infinite and immortal. A man lives for a brief span, but litigation continues for generations together, outliving the very litigants who initiated it. The maxim “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied” is not a mere platitude but a harsh reality of the system prevailing in Revenue Courts Administration System. If cases remain pending and are not decided for years together, for decades and in some cases even after more than half a century has passed, it is a sorry state of affairs.”

For context, the Court was hearing a petition seeking directions for disposal of a complaint that was filed in 1963, in which the proceedings under Section 145, CrPC, were pending for 63 years.

The Court highlighted that it appeared that neither party was interested in its disposal and hence the matter was being deferred from one date to another. In this light, the Court opined the no litigant had the right to abuse the process of law or proceed in a trial at its own leisure and pleasure.

It held that the concept of seeking repeated and unnecessary adjournments had grown and spread like cancer, corroding the entire body or judicial system. The practice of granting such adjournments in a routine manner affected judicial delivery system and had to be deprecated.

“Now the time has come to change the old mindset and approach of the litigants, where the cases are filed by the grandparents and the judgments are eventually heard by their grandchildren. In such a situation, one of the parties continues to derive benefit from the prolonged pendency, while the other party is left without adjudication of the dispute on its merits.”

While holding that the present case was a classic example of gross violation of the right to speedy trial under Article 21, the Court held that the matter shall be kept in the category of “oldest targeted case to be decided on priority”, and directed Sub-divisional Magistrate to decide it within 3 months, without entertaining any "unnecessary and unwarranted" adjournments.

"No adjournment shall be granted in this case, unless it becomes absolutely unavoidable, and that too the reasons therefore shall be recorded in writing in the order-sheet itself, in the handwriting of the Presiding Officer," the court directed. 

The Court stated that heavy costs, running in 6 figures, shall be imposed on either side seeking such deferment of the matter.

Further, it was directed that in case presiding officer failed in compliance of this order, directions to concerned higher officials shall be given to take action against him, including an observation in the Annual report of failure in discharging judicial duties.

The Registrar, Board of revenue, and the Collector of the district have been directed to monitor the progress of the case.

The matter is listed on December 18, 2026, for compliance report.

Title: Jairam v Sub-Division Magistrate and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 401

Click Here To Read/Download Order