YASHPAL JAIN versus SUSHILA DEVI & OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 15 S.C.R. 948 · Decided: 20-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 15 S.C.R. 948 : 2023 INSC 948
948
CASE DETAILS
YASHPAL JAIN
v.
SUSHILA DEVI & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 4296 of 2023)
OCTOBER 20, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the impugned order passed quashing 
the order dated 13.12.2012 rendered in Civil Revision by the High Court 
whereby the order dated 09.05.2012 passed by trial court allowing the 
impleadment application fi led by the appellant had been rejected, to be 
sustained or set aside; whether any further directions require to be issued 
for concluding the proceedings in a time bound manner on account of the 
suit pending for trial for past 41 years?
Suit – Suit was instituted by the original plaintiff  in 1982 to declare 
the sale deed executed by fi rst defendant in favour of defendants No.4 to 
32 in respect of the suit properties, to be null and void and for a decree 
of possession of the suit properties – Proceedings protracted from 1982 
till her demise in 2007 whereafter, several orders were passed by the 
courts below, both in original jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction 
– Impugned order resulted in rejection of the application fi led by the 
appellant to be brought on record as legal representative of the deceased 
plaintiff  – Sustainability:
Held: Not sustainable – On facts, respondents herein themselves 
having fi led an application in WP (M/S) No.342 of 2005 for bringing the 
present appellant as the plaintiff ’s legal representative in the aforesaid writ 
petition and prosecuted the same, refl ects that they were in the acquaintance 
of the fact of the present appellant being the legal representative of deceased 
plaintiff  but yet are attempting to contend that ‘MKJ’ is to be brought 
on record as legal representative of the deceased plaintiff  – Further, the 
949
defendants cannot be heard to contend that appellant herein had fi led two 
affi  davits (Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-7) whereunder he had admitted 
‘MKJ’ as the legal representative of deceased plaintiff  and as such he cannot 
turn around to assert himself to be the legal representative of the deceased 
plaintiff , as the affi  davits fi led by the appellant does not even remotely 
suggest or indicate that he had admitted ‘MKJ’ being the legal representative 
of the deceased plaintiff  – On the other hand, said affi  davits clearly indicate 
that he had only affi  rmed and reiterated the fact that he is a signatory to the 
Will and nothing more or nothing less – Furthermore, ‘MKJ’ himself had 
fi led an application, accompanied by affi  davit before the Revisional Court in 
Civil Revision No.2 of 2010, stating that he would not press the application 
fi led by him for substitution – This was suffi  cient for the High Court to have 
accepted the plea of the appellant or in other words, it should have sustained 
the order of trial court and ordered for appellant being brought on record as 
legal representative of deceased plaintiff  – Impugned order set aside – Order 
dated 09.05.2012 passed by the Trial Court as affi  rmed in Civil Revision 
No.4 of 2012 vide order dated 13.12.2012, affi  rmed – Further directions 
issued – Judicial Delay . [Paras 12, 14-16]
Directions by Supreme Court – Judicial Delay – Certain litigations 
initiated more than 50 years back still pending – Data from National 
Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), three oldest civil and criminal cases noted 
– Factors behind Judicial Delays, enumerated – Steps taken to curb 
Judicial delay, historical outlook – Reasons for delay in civil trial – 
Discussed – Case Flow Management System Rules – Chief Justices 
of High Courts where said Rules are yet to be framed, requested to 
take immediate steps to formulate such rules – State-wise pendency 
of cases before the respective High Courts and overall Civil Courts 
as on 16.10.2023; stage-wise pendency also stated – Requests made to 
the Chief Justices of the High Courts – Directions issued to the trial 
courts to ensure that speedy justice is delivered – Further directions for 
implementation of the said directions to be issued from time to time, if 
necessary – Secretary General to circulate the copy of this judgment 
to the Registrar General of all the High Courts for being placed before 
the respective Chief Justices for consideration and suitable steps being 
taken. [Paras 18, 19, 21-26, 27-31, 33, 34]
YASHPAL JAIN v. SUSHILA DEVI & OTHERS
950 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 15 S.C.R.
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
All India Judges Association

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.