'Civil Proceedings Mean Nothing To Parties, Because Courts Are So Lax' : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday orally remarked that parties are not taking civil proceedings seriously because of the laxity of the Courts."...Civil proceedings mean nothing to the parties. This is because the courts are so lax", observed Justice DY Chandrachud while hearing a civil appeal."Our (civil justice) system is a 'defendant' system. The reason is that the courts do not take the provisions seriously", added Justice D. Y. Chandrachud.The bench of Justices Chandrachud and M. R. Shah was hearing a Special Leave Petition against a Delhi High Court decision confirming the trial court's order to strike off its defence under Order 11 Rule 21, CPC in a suit for recovery. The order under Rule 21 came to be passed on account of Hindustan Zinc's failure to comply with a direction under Order 11 Rule 12 for the discovery of work protocols entered into between itself, BHEL and the respondent.While Rule 12 is the provision for the 'Application for discovery of documents', Rule 21 states that if any party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatories, or for discovery or inspection of documents, he shall, if a plaintiff, be liable to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution, and, if a defendant, to have his defence, if any, struck out, and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended."The moment the courts do (start taking the civil law seriously), people will start complying...Civil proceedings mean nothing to the parties. This is because the courts are so lax", observed Justice Chandrachud."Imagine the Supreme Court of India is listening to this matter. Nowhere in the world will this be tolerated!", added the judge.In the instant case, the subject suit for recovery was filed before the Delhi High Court by the respondent against the petitioner contending that the respondent/plaintiff was given a work order by BHEL for erection and commissioning of a 80 Mega Watt Capacity Power Plant. The BHEL in turn awarded a sub contract to the respondent/plaintiff for the said purpose as respondent was an approved vendor/contractor for the same.It was contended in the plaint that the petitioner company had introduced an incentive scheme for rewarding the respondent company in carrying out the erection and commissioning of the plant and accordingly issued a letter/scheme of incentive dated 26.02.2007. It was argued that the respondent/plaintiff duly executed the work as per the scheme, however, the benefit of the scheme was not granted to the respondent/plaintiff. Consequently, the subject suit was filed.Respondent filed an application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC seeking discovery of the work protocols entered into between the petitioner, BHEL and the respondent. The contention of the respondent was that the work protocols after their execution were in the power and possession of the petitioner.By order dated 14.01.2016, the Delhi High Court specifically directed Hindustan Zinc to discover, in accordance with law and as provided in the specified form, the documents being the work protocols entered into by itself with M/s. BHEL pertaining to such work protocols which had a direct bearing on the work which was sub contracted to the respondent. The Court clarified that appellant need not discover documents being the work protocols entered into between it and BHEL which had no bearing with respect to the obligations of the respondent. The needful was directed to be done within a period of eight weeks.Order dated 14.01.2016 also noticed the fact that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court had been enhanced. The Court by order dated 14.01.2016 transferred the Records to the jurisdictional Court under the District & Sessions Judge and directed the parties to appear before the District Judge on 22.03.2016.It is an admitted position that said order dated 14.01.2016, under Order 11 rule 12 CPC, was not complied with by the appellant within the period of eight weeks.Thereafter, on 18.11.2017 subject application under Order 11 Rule 21 CPC was filed by the respondent seeking striking off of the defence of the petitioner for failure to comply with order dated 14.01.2016.The Trial Court by the impugned order dated 04.08.2018 noticed that the contention raised by the petitioner was that the records sought to be produced are old and as such could not be produced. The Trial Court held that such a contention, if at all, should have been raised before the High Court at the time of consideration of the application under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC and not at the said stage.The Trial Court has also held that the contention of the petitioner that the concerned officers who were in-charge of the relevant record had left their organization was a vague plea as neither detail of such officers nor facts relating to them leaving the organization had been furnished.The Trial Court accordingly held that since there was no compliance by the appellant of the order dated 14.01.2016, the defence was liable to be struck off and...

'Civil Proceedings Mean Nothing To Parties, Because Courts Are So Lax' : Supreme Court

Mehal Jain

Tags