32 years on, Punjab and Haryana High Court raps lower court for myopic opinion

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, February 27

In a surprising turn of events, a lower court’s refusal to condone a 45-day delay in filing an appeal has resulted in a 32-year wait for justice in a land matter. Expressing dismay at the lower court’s decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has criticised its myopic opinion in the matter. Justice Anil Kshetarpal of the high court has also disposed of the appeal filed way back in 1992 after directing the parties to appear before the lower court next month.

The wait may sound atypical, but is not exceptional. The high court currently has no less than 4,39,828 cases pending, including 1,64,551 criminal matters involving life and liberty. No less than 20,307 or 4.62 per cent of the total cases are pending for 20 to 30 years.

The situation is unlikely to improve in the coming months following a shortage of 30 judges. The high court currently has 55 judges as against the sanctioned strength of 85 judges. Four more judges are retiring this year upon attaining the age of superannuation.

Available information suggests nine judges are to be elevated from the category of district and sessions judges. But the appointments are likely to take time. The process of appointing judges is lengthy and time consuming. The entire exercise can take several months, if not taken up on priority basis.

The assertions by Justice Kshetarpal came on regular second appeal filed by the state of Haryana against respondent Ram Lal. The Bench asserted it was sad that the first appellate court dismissed the matter without discussing on the merits, while refusing to condone 45 days’ delay in filing the first appeal before it. The first appellate court was of the opinion that the appeal before it should have been filed on July 16, 1990 –– the day the court opened after the summer vacation. But it was filed on September 1, 1990.

Justice Kshetarpal also took note of the state counsel’s submission that time was consumed as the matter was referred to the Legal Remembrancer and the secretary concerned for opinion. The sanction for filing the appeal was taken after receiving the opinion.

Setting aside the judgment, Justice Kshetarpal added, “The first appellate court is the last court of fact and law. This is an important right available to the parties in contesting the litigation to call upon the courts to re-appreciate the evidence. Hence, it is expected that the First Appellate Court should take holistic view while deciding the civil rights of the parties.” The respondent was represented by counsel SS Dalal.