Habibullah Shora Vs. Jalla Bano and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- ordermuzaffar jan, j.1. revision petitions nos. 48/ 2001 and 49/2001 have been filed to set aside the order passed by the iii additional district judge, srinagar dated 31-5-2001 to two civil suits titled jalla bano v. habib ullah shora and gh. mohi-ud-din v. habibullah shora. by this common order i propose to dispose of both the revision petitions.2. the parties are locked in litigation for more than 29 years over the ownership rights of a house situated at jawahar nagar, srinagar. it appears that proceedings under section 145, cr. p.c. were also initiated in the year 1975 in respect of this property and the contest was taken right up to the apex court. the apex court in criminal appeal no. 20 of 1975 by.order dated 3-3-1976 directed as under :--the appellants shall continue in possession of the disputed property as agents of the nazir who has been appointed as custodian by the criminal court under section 145 of the code of criminal procedure. the appellants agree and undertake to this court that if their suits are dismissed by the trial court, they shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the nazir who in turn shall hand over possession to respondent no. 2. we reserve liberty to the parties and to the nazir to apply to the learned magistrate for appropriate directions as and when necessary. the civil suit filed by the first appellant for establishing her title to the property shall be disposed of by the trial court, as far as possible, within four months from today. the civil court in which the suit filed by the first appellant is pending shall, if necessary, allow the first appellant to amend the plaint so as to put the title in issue in the suit. with these observations the appeal stands disposed of. the proceedings under section 145, code of criminal procedure, shall be treated as closed on the disposal of the two suits pending in the civil court.'3. while deciding the appeal, the apex court firmly directed that the civil suits be decided within four months from 3-3-1976. the civil suits were not decided within this period. instead a transfer application seems to have been made by the respondents before the hon'ble chief justice of this court which was decided vide order dated 8-10-1984 in the following terms :'m/s. k. n. raina and k. n. bhat, advocates, appearing for the respondents have no objection to the prayer being allowed. the petition is accordingly allowed and it is directed that the learned chief judicial magistrate (sub-judge), srinagar, shall hear the arguments in the suit titled mst. jalla begum v. habib ullah shora and dispose of the suit expeditiously and as far as possible within a period of three months from today.'4. by this order the sub-judge (chief judicial magistrate), srinagar, was directed to decide the suit within a period of three months from 8-10-1984. the controversy was not settled within this period, but another transfer application no. 15/85 seems to have been filed by the respondents before the hon'ble chief justice of this court, which was decided vide order dated 20-7-1985. the transfer application was rejected with the direction to the learned sub-judge (chief judicial magistrate), srinagar, to decide the suits on or before 10-8-1985. it seems that an application for extension of time to decide the matter was submitted by respondents under no. 282/85 which was allowed with the specific direction to the trial court to decide the controversy by 31-8-1985. the suits were, however, not decided by the date stipulated by this court, yet another transfer application was submitted by the respondents before the ii additional district judge, srinagar, under file no. 2/ 87 which was also rejected on 26-10-1987 by the said court. against this order of rejection revision petition no. 185/1987 was submitted before this court which was rejected vide order dated 31-3-1988 with direction to the trial court to prepare and announce the judgment as early as possible under intimation to the registry of this court.5. it seems that in the suit titled habibullah v. jalla bano, an application, cta no. 15/91, was submitted by the petitioner that since the presiding officers of the trial courts were not deciding the civil suits, the suits may be withdrawn from the courts of subordinate judge and taken on the file of this court. this application was, however, rejected vide order dated 25-3-1991 with further direction to the presiding officer of the trial court to dispose of both the suits by the end of april, 1991. however, the matter was not allowed to be settled in spite of the repeated directions of this court, by the respondents. consequently, two more transfer applications were moved by the petitioner under nos. 23/99 and 24/ 99 in which it was again prayed that the two suits may be withdrawn from the court of sub-judge (chief judicial magistrate), srinagar, in order to prevent further delay and prolonged pendency of the suits. both the applications were disposed of vide order dated 25-4-2000 by this court with the following directions :the learned counsel for the parties shall cause appearance before the sub-judge (cjm), srinagar, on 27-4-2000 at 11 o'clock to advance the arguments. no adjournment shall be granted. if the arguments are not concluded on the said date because of paucity of time or for any other reason beyond the control of the court, the suit shall be repeated in the cause lists of the next following working days and the arguments shall be concluded within ten days which period shall begin from 27-4-2000. the judgment shall be pronounced within fifteen days thereafter to be reckoned from the date on which arguments in the case are concluded. should the parties or any of them choose not to appear the court shall pronounce the judgment on its merits. compliance of the order to be reported to the registrar, judicial of srinagar wing of the court.'6. in spite of a firm, specific and categoric direction by this court by the above order that the judgment shall be pronounced within fifteen days after the arguments were concluded, the judgment was not pronounced, but another transfer application was filed by the respondents in the court of 3rd additional district judge, srinagar. the transfer application was disposed of vide order dated 31-5-2001. it is the validity of this order which has been challenged in the present two revision petitions.7. heard learned counsel for the parties at length,8. th1 learned iii additional district judge, srinagar, has not decided the transfer application on merits, but has disposed of the same as having become infructuous. the impugned order reads thus :the present application has been filed seeking transfer of the two civil suits which are pending before the learned sub-judge (chief judicial magistrate), srinagar. though the learned trial judge has heard the arguments and has posted the said suits for final judgment, yet he would not be able now to pronounce judgment in the said suits since he has been promoted. as such, the present transfer application has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. let the record of the trial court be sent back forthwith. parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 4-6-2001.'since the learned iii additional district judge, srinagar, has not permitted the transfer of any of the two cases and has held that the transfer application has become infructuous, therefore, no decision is required on the validity of the impugned order.9. the important aspect which has to be considered by this court is the submission of learned counsel for the present petitions that since the then learned sub-judge (chief judicial magistrate) srinagar, namely, mr. nazir fida, had heard the arguments extending over a period of ten months and posted both the suits for pronouncement of judgment to 30-4-2001 vide order dated 15-3-2001, whether he can be directed to pronounce the judgment or not. in this behalf mr. bashir submitted that the arguments in the two suits were concluded on 15-3-2001. in terms of the order dated 25-4-2000 of this court, the learned sub-judge was required to announce the judgment within fifteen days from the date the arguments were concluded, but the sub-judge posted the suits for judgment after 45 days from the date of conclusion of the arguments. that, according to the learned counsel, was done by the trial judge in utter disregard, disobedience and defiance of the order of this court dated 25-4-2000. it was on 25-4-2001, i.e., almost 40 days after the arguments were concluded, that the respondents filed the two transfer applications in which the impugned order was passed. since the files had remained with the learned sub-judge for writing judgments for nearly 40 days after hearing the arguments. it is in that context that the learned counsel wants a direction to the erstwhile sub-judge, who in the meantime during the pendency of the transfer petitions, was promoted, to pronounce the judgment.10. learned counsel for the respondents. mr. m. a. qayoom, has resisted the submission with firm stand that there is no law which permits the pronouncement of judgment after the presiding officer is transferred or promoted when the judgment has not been written by the out-going presiding officer. learned counsel submitted that it is only in case the judgment is written, the succeeding presiding officer can pronounce the same in transfer or promotion of the predecessor and not otherwise. therefore, mr. nazir fida, cannot be asked to write the judgment after his promotion.11. the submission of learned counsel for respondents that although mr. nazir fida heard the arguments but did not write the judgment cannot, after his promotion, be asked to write the judgment, in the facts and circumstances, has to be accepted.12. it is the fundamental right of litigants to get justice without delay. where a parly is bent upon to cause delay and utilize all his energy and resources not in seeking justice, but in ensuring that delay is caused by recourse to revision petitions, transfer applications and other ancillary modes, it is the duty of the courts to ensure that cause of justice is not frustrated on this count and other technicalities and effective supervision is exercised over the proceedings to prevent any party to cause delay. whereas seeking of unnecessary adjournments by an advocate has been equated with dereliction of duty of an advocate towards the courts tactics of filibuster adopted by an advocate has been held by the apex court to be professional misconduct. (see 2001 air scw 1929) : (air 2001 sc 2028). the aspect of pronouncement of judgments after cases are heard by civil courts also came up for consideration before the apex court in anil rai v. state of bihar (air 2001 sc 3173). in this context the apex court held that pronouncement of judgments in the civil cases should not be permitted to go beyond two months. the delay of 29 years in the present case has been caused mainly by resorting to side track litigation in revisions, transfer petitions and other ancillary applications and also by lack of supervision by the trial court and lack of control of the presiding officer on the file in total defiance of the repeated directions of the superior courts. therefore, effective measures have to be ordered to prevent further delay on any count.13. since the revision petitions have become infructuous because of the promotion of the presiding officer, therefore, the same are dismissed. however, since both the presiding officer of the trial court as also the party and counsel concerned have been instrumental in prolonging the litigation it is desirable that effective directions are given so that this long pending litigation is brought to a logical conclusion and the tendency to cause further delay is checked. accordingly, the following directions are made :--1. the trial court i.e. sub-judge (com). srinagar will take up both the civil suits for arguments on 20-11-2001 and list the case on every day to hear arguments and ensure that the arguments are concluded by 15th december, 2001. tactics of filibuster on the part of either of the advocates appearing for the parties should be avoided considering the age of the case. thereafter the judgment shall be delivered by 31 st december, 2001 by the trial court. the trial court may accept the written arguments which are already on the file in order to ensure full compliance of the above directions;2. in case any transfer application or any ancillary proceedings are initiated by any of the parties before any subordinate court to thwart any of the directions, intimation of the same shall be immediately given to this court;3. learned counsel for the parties are requested to ensure that they render full cooperation and assistance to the trial court to conclude the arguments by the date fixed for doing so. the trial court shall not adjourn the case for arguments on any count whatsoever.14. as noticed and observed, shri nazir fida was sub-judge, chief judicial magistrate, srinagar on 25-4-2000 when the coordinate bench of this court passed an order on the two transfer applications directing the presiding officer to hear and conclude the arguments in the two suits within 10 days which period was ordered to begin from 27-5-2000 and, thereafter, to pronounce the judgments within 15 days which would be on or before 22-6-2000. the sub-judge has heard the arguments for about ten months beginning from 27-5-2000 to 15-3-2001. he was under direction to announce the judgments within 15 days from the date the arguments had been concluded, but he posted the files for judgments to 30-4-2001, i.e., 45 days after the conclusion of the arguments. he did not write the judgments up to 25-4-2001 despite the fact that the files were with him for writing judgments for 40 days. on 25-4-2001 the respondents moved transfer petitions before the iii additional district judge, srinagar and, thereafter, during the pendency of the transfer petitions, the presiding officer was promoted. but the fact remains that the presiding officer, mr. nazir fida, has not shown any compliance of the directions of this court. he has shown no regards for the express directions of this court, as is apparent from the record. firstly, he heard the arguments for nearly ten months. then, on conclusion of the arguments, he posted the files for judgments after 45 days, when he was under clear and express direction to pronounce the judgment within 15 days. secondly, despite having retained the files with him for 40 days after conclusion of the arguments, he has not written the judgment. had he written the judgment, the same would have formed part of the record and could have been announced by his successor in accordance with law. thus the presiding officer has been procrastinative all through and in this manner he has withheld justice which is denial of justice. in n. g. dastane v. shrikant section shivde 2001 air scw 1929 : (air 2001 sc 2028) the supreme court, while dealing almost with a similar situation, observed as under (at page 2031 of air) :--'14. when he heard the arguments of shri p.h. parekh, learned counsel for the appellant and sri vijay s. kotewal, learned senior counsel for the respondents we felt, apart from the question of professional misconduct of the respondents, that the judicial magistrate, who yielded to all the procrastinative tactics, should be made answerable to the high court so that action could be taken against the magistrate on the administrative side for such serious laches.in the instant case, the presiding officer has totally disregarded the clear and express directions of this court contained in order dated 25-4-2000, not a single direction thereof has been observed by the presiding officer. in fact, the record suggests that it was the time gap between the date of conclusion of the final arguments and the date on which the files were posted for judgment, that gave an opportunity for the concerned party to move yet another transfer petition to further forestall pronouncement of judgment. for this unjustified non-compliance of the express orders and directions of this court, the matter may be placed before the lord chief justice for action against the said officer on administrative side.15. learned counsel for parties are directed to appear before the court of sub-judge (cjm), srinagar on 20-11 -2001 at 11 a.m. registry must send the record in advance, if any called.16. the registrar judicial shall circulate this judgment to all the presiding officers of the subordinate courts for information and guidance.

Judgment:
ORDER

Muzaffar Jan, J.

1. Revision Petitions Nos. 48/ 2001 and 49/2001 have been filed to set aside the order passed by the III Additional District Judge, Srinagar dated 31-5-2001 to two civil suits titled Jalla Bano v. Habib Ullah Shora and Gh. Mohi-ud-Din v. Habibullah Shora. By this common order I propose to dispose of both the revision petitions.

2. The parties are locked in litigation for more than 29 years over the ownership rights of a house situated at Jawahar Nagar, Srinagar. It appears that proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P.C. were also initiated in the year 1975 in respect of this property and the contest was taken right up to the Apex Court. The Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 1975 by.order dated 3-3-1976 directed as under :--

The appellants shall continue in possession of the disputed property as agents of the Nazir who has been appointed as custodian by the Criminal Court under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellants agree and undertake to this Court that if their suits are dismissed by the trial Court, they shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property to the Nazir who in turn shall hand over possession to respondent No. 2. We reserve liberty to the parties and to the Nazir to apply to the learned Magistrate for appropriate directions as and when necessary. The Civil Suit filed by the first appellant for establishing her title to the property shall be disposed of by the trial Court, as far as possible, within four months from today. The Civil Court in which the suit filed by the first appellant is pending shall, if necessary, allow the first appellant to amend the plaint so as to put the title in issue in the suit. With these observations the appeal stands disposed of. The proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure, shall be treated as closed on the disposal of the two suits pending in the Civil Court.'

3. While deciding the appeal, the Apex Court firmly directed that the civil suits be decided within four months from 3-3-1976. The civil suits were not decided within this period. Instead a transfer application seems to have been made by the respondents before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court which was decided vide order dated 8-10-1984 in the following terms :

'M/s. K. N. Raina and K. N. Bhat, Advocates, appearing for the respondents have no objection to the prayer being allowed. The petition is accordingly allowed and it is directed that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Sub-Judge), Srinagar, shall hear the arguments in the suit titled Mst. Jalla Begum v. Habib Ullah Shora and dispose of the suit expeditiously and as far as possible within a period of three months from today.'

4. By this order the Sub-Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Srinagar, was directed to decide the suit within a period of three months from 8-10-1984. The controversy was not settled within this period, but another transfer application No. 15/85 seems to have been filed by the respondents before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court, which was decided vide order dated 20-7-1985. The transfer application was rejected with the direction to the learned Sub-Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Srinagar, to decide the suits on or before 10-8-1985. It seems that an application for extension of time to decide the matter was submitted by respondents under No. 282/85 which was allowed with the specific direction to the trial Court to decide the controversy by 31-8-1985. The suits were, however, not decided by the date stipulated by this Court, yet another transfer application was submitted by the respondents before the II Additional District Judge, Srinagar, under File No. 2/ 87 which was also rejected on 26-10-1987 by the said Court. Against this order of rejection Revision Petition No. 185/1987 was submitted before this Court which was rejected vide order dated 31-3-1988 with direction to the trial Court to prepare and announce the judgment as early as possible under intimation to the Registry of this Court.

5. It seems that in the suit titled Habibullah v. Jalla Bano, an application, CTA No. 15/91, was submitted by the petitioner that since the Presiding Officers of the trial Courts were not deciding the civil suits, the suits may be withdrawn from the Courts of Subordinate Judge and taken on the file of this Court. This application was, however, rejected vide order dated 25-3-1991 with further direction to the Presiding Officer of the trial Court to dispose of both the suits by the end of April, 1991. However, the matter was not allowed to be settled in spite of the repeated directions of this Court, by the respondents. Consequently, two more transfer applications were moved by the petitioner under Nos. 23/99 and 24/ 99 in which it was again prayed that the two suits may be withdrawn from the Court of Sub-Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Srinagar, in order to prevent further delay and prolonged pendency of the suits. Both the applications were disposed of vide order dated 25-4-2000 by this Court with the following directions :

The learned Counsel for the parties shall cause appearance before the Sub-Judge (CJM), Srinagar, on 27-4-2000 at 11 O'Clock to advance the arguments. No adjournment shall be granted. If the arguments are not concluded on the said date because of paucity of time or for any other reason beyond the control of the Court, the suit shall be repeated in the cause lists of the next following working days and the arguments shall be concluded within ten days which period shall begin from 27-4-2000. The judgment shall be pronounced within fifteen days thereafter to be reckoned from the date on which arguments in the case are concluded. Should the parties or any of them choose not to appear the Court shall pronounce the judgment on its merits. Compliance of the order to be reported to the Registrar, Judicial of Srinagar Wing of the Court.'

6. In spite of a firm, specific and categoric direction by this Court by the above order that the judgment shall be pronounced within fifteen days after the arguments were concluded, the judgment was not pronounced, but another transfer application was filed by the respondents in the Court of 3rd Additional District Judge, Srinagar. The transfer application was disposed of vide order dated 31-5-2001. It is the validity of this order which has been challenged in the present two revision petitions.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length,

8. Th1 learned III Additional District Judge, Srinagar, has not decided the transfer application on merits, but has disposed of the same as having become infructuous. The impugned order reads thus :

The present application has been filed seeking transfer of the two civil suits which are pending before the learned Sub-Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Srinagar. Though the learned trial Judge has heard the arguments and has posted the said suits for final judgment, yet he would not be able now to pronounce judgment in the said suits since he has been promoted. As such, the present transfer application has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. Let the record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 4-6-2001.'

Since the learned III Additional District Judge, Srinagar, has not permitted the transfer of any of the two cases and has held that the transfer application has become infructuous, therefore, no decision is required on the validity of the impugned order.

9. The important aspect which has to be considered by this Court is the submission of learned counsel for the present petitions that since the then learned Sub-Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Srinagar, namely, Mr. Nazir Fida, had heard the arguments extending over a period of ten months and posted both the suits for pronouncement of judgment to 30-4-2001 vide order dated 15-3-2001, whether he can be directed to pronounce the judgment or not. In this behalf Mr. Bashir submitted that the arguments in the two suits were concluded on 15-3-2001. In terms of the order dated 25-4-2000 of this Court, the learned Sub-Judge was required to announce the judgment within fifteen days from the date the arguments were concluded, but the Sub-Judge posted the suits for judgment after 45 days from the date of conclusion of the arguments. That, according to the learned counsel, was done by the trial Judge in utter disregard, disobedience and defiance of the order of this Court dated 25-4-2000. It was on 25-4-2001, i.e., almost 40 days after the arguments were concluded, that the respondents filed the two transfer applications in which the impugned order was passed. Since the files had remained with the learned Sub-Judge for writing judgments for nearly 40 days after hearing the arguments. It is in that context that the learned counsel wants a direction to the erstwhile Sub-Judge, who in the meantime during the pendency of the transfer petitions, was promoted, to pronounce the judgment.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents. Mr. M. A. Qayoom, has resisted the submission with firm stand that there is no law which permits the pronouncement of Judgment after the Presiding Officer is transferred or promoted when the judgment has not been written by the out-going Presiding officer. Learned counsel submitted that it is only in case the judgment is written, the succeeding Presiding Officer can pronounce the same in transfer or promotion of the predecessor and not otherwise. Therefore, Mr. Nazir Fida, cannot be asked to write the judgment after his promotion.

11. The submission of learned counsel for respondents that although Mr. Nazir Fida heard the arguments but did not write the judgment cannot, after his promotion, be asked to write the judgment, in the facts and circumstances, has to be accepted.

12. It is the fundamental right of litigants to get Justice without delay. Where a parly is bent upon to cause delay and utilize all his energy and resources not in seeking justice, but in ensuring that delay is caused by recourse to revision petitions, transfer applications and other ancillary modes, it is the duty of the Courts to ensure that cause of justice is not frustrated on this count and other technicalities and effective supervision is exercised over the proceedings to prevent any party to cause delay. Whereas seeking of unnecessary adjournments by an Advocate has been equated with dereliction of duty of an Advocate towards the Courts tactics of filibuster adopted by an Advocate has been held by the Apex Court to be professional misconduct. (See 2001 AIR SCW 1929) : (AIR 2001 SC 2028). The aspect of pronouncement of judgments after cases are heard by civil Courts also came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (AIR 2001 SC 3173). In this context the Apex Court held that pronouncement of judgments in the civil cases should not be permitted to go beyond two months. The delay of 29 years in the present case has been caused mainly by resorting to side track litigation in revisions, transfer petitions and other ancillary applications and also by lack of supervision by the trial Court and lack of control of the Presiding Officer on the file in total defiance of the repeated directions of the superior Courts. Therefore, effective measures have to be ordered to prevent further delay on any count.

13. Since the revision petitions have become infructuous because of the promotion of the Presiding Officer, therefore, the same are dismissed. However, since both the Presiding Officer of the trial Court as also the party and counsel concerned have been instrumental in prolonging the litigation it is desirable that effective directions are given so that this long pending litigation is brought to a logical conclusion and the tendency to cause further delay is checked. Accordingly, the following directions are made :--

1. The trial Court i.e. Sub-Judge (COM). Srinagar will take up both the civil suits for arguments on 20-11-2001 and list the case on every day to hear arguments and ensure that the arguments are concluded by 15th December, 2001. Tactics of filibuster on the part of either of the Advocates appearing for the parties should be avoided considering the age of the case. Thereafter the judgment shall be delivered by 31 st December, 2001 by the trial Court. The trial Court may accept the written arguments which are already on the file in order to ensure full compliance of the above directions;

2. In case any transfer application or any ancillary proceedings are initiated by any of the parties before any subordinate Court to thwart any of the directions, intimation of the same shall be immediately given to this Court;

3. Learned counsel for the parties are requested to ensure that they render full cooperation and assistance to the trial Court to conclude the arguments by the date fixed for doing so. The trial Court shall not adjourn the case for arguments on any count whatsoever.

14. As noticed and observed, Shri Nazir Fida was Sub-Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar on 25-4-2000 when the coordinate bench of this Court passed an order on the two transfer applications directing the Presiding Officer to hear and conclude the arguments in the two suits within 10 days which period was ordered to begin from 27-5-2000 and, thereafter, to pronounce the judgments within 15 days which would be on or before 22-6-2000. The Sub-Judge has heard the arguments for about ten months beginning from 27-5-2000 to 15-3-2001. He was under direction to announce the judgments within 15 days from the date the arguments had been concluded, but he posted the files for judgments to 30-4-2001, i.e., 45 days after the conclusion of the arguments. He did not write the judgments up to 25-4-2001 despite the fact that the files were with him for writing judgments for 40 days. On 25-4-2001 the respondents moved transfer petitions before the III Additional District Judge, Srinagar and, thereafter, during the pendency of the transfer petitions, the Presiding Officer was promoted. But the fact remains that the Presiding Officer, Mr. Nazir Fida, has not shown any compliance of the directions of this Court. He has shown no regards for the express directions of this Court, as is apparent from the record. Firstly, he heard the arguments for nearly ten months. Then, on conclusion of the arguments, he posted the files for judgments after 45 days, when he was under clear and express direction to pronounce the judgment within 15 days. Secondly, despite having retained the files with him for 40 days after conclusion of the arguments, he has not written the judgment. Had he written the judgment, the same would have formed part of the record and could have been announced by his successor in accordance with law. Thus the Presiding Officer has been procrastinative all through and in this manner he has withheld justice which is denial of justice. In N. G. Dastane v. Shrikant Section Shivde 2001 AIR SCW 1929 : (AIR 2001 SC 2028) the Supreme Court, while dealing almost with a similar situation, observed as under (at page 2031 of AIR) :--

'14. When he heard the arguments of Shri P.H. Parekh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vijay S. Kotewal, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents we felt, apart from the question of professional misconduct of the respondents, that the Judicial Magistrate, who yielded to all the procrastinative tactics, should be made answerable to the High Court so that action could be taken against the Magistrate on the administrative side for such serious laches.

In the instant case, the Presiding Officer has totally disregarded the clear and express directions of this Court contained in order dated 25-4-2000, Not a single direction thereof has been observed by the Presiding Officer. In fact, the record suggests that it was the time gap between the date of conclusion of the final arguments and the date on which the files were posted for judgment, that gave an opportunity for the concerned party to move yet another transfer petition to further forestall pronouncement of judgment. For this unjustified non-compliance of the express orders and directions of this Court, the matter may be placed before the Lord Chief Justice for action against the said Officer on administrative side.

15. Learned counsel for parties are directed to appear before the Court of Sub-Judge (CJM), Srinagar on 20-11 -2001 at 11 A.M. Registry must send the record in advance, if any called.

16. The Registrar Judicial shall circulate this judgment to all the Presiding Officers of the subordinate Courts for information and guidance.