Delhi High Court has reiterated that the lockdown ought not to affect pronouncement of judgments/ orders by the trial courts where arguments have been heard and the orders have been reserved.
The Single Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh further observed that repeated adjournments `FOR ORDERS' or for `Pronouncement of judgment' would not be permissible even during the lockdown.
The order has come in a civil miscellaneous petition seeking a direction to be issued to the trial court to give out the order which was reserved long back and dispose of a pending case.
The Petitioner was aggrieved by the fact that despite the matter being reserved for orders, no orders were pronounced in the application moved under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code.
While going through the submissions, the court relied upon the judgment in Puneet Kumar v. Registrar General wherein it was held that various orders relating to the lockdown would not prohibit the trial court from pronouncing the final order/judgment in the petitions pending before it.
While highlighting that lockdown should not act as an impediment in the pronouncement of orders, the court observed that:
'the national lockdown, which may result in adjournments being granted in matters should not, in any manner, affect the pronouncement of orders and judgements, which are reserved by Judicial Officers in Trial Courts. This is because once the matter is heard and orders are reserved, no further hearing would be required, only pronouncement of order/ judgment needs to take place.'
The court also placed reliance on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 wherein it is stated that orders which are reserved have to be pronounced within two months. If the same are not pronounced for three months, the litigant is entitled to approach the High Court.
Therefore, the court directed for the said order to be circulated to all District Judges to be communicated to all Judicial Officers in the Trial Court so that reserved orders/judgments that are pending can be pronounced and are not simply adjourned `FOR ORDERS'.
Case Title: Dalbir Singh v. Satish Chand
The Petitioner in this case was represented by Mr Harsh Kumar and Ms Sikha Gogoi
Click Here To Download Order