Full Judgment Text
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:22.02.2021
23:01:19
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of Decision: 18 February, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 2207/2021 & CM APPL. 6437/2021
SANDHYA SRIVASTAVA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raghuvendra M. Bajaj, Ms.
Garima Bajaj, Mr. Agaish Aditya &
Mr. Nikhil Bamal, Advocates (M-
9711241241)
versus
DR NEELAM MISHRA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Saroya, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode (physical and virtual
hearing).
2. This is an unfortunate case where the Petitioner has been forced to
come to Court due to non-pronouncement of orders/judgment by the
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission ( hereinafter ‘NCDRC’ ).
3. The Petitioner has filed a complaint before the NCDRC alleging
negligence by the doctors and hospital - Kanpur Medical Centre Private
Ltd., Kanpur, UP (hereinafter, ‘Hospital’) , due to which severe burns were
caused to her as a newly born infant. The complaint was filed before the
NCDRC in April, 2006. It has been more than 15 years since the complaint
is pending.
th
4. The matter was first argued before the NCDRC on 13 August, 2018
and was reserved for orders. The said order reads:
“ Arguments heard. Order reserved.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATHIBA M SINGH
W.P.(C) 2207/2021 Page 1 of 10
Signing Date:22.02.2021 22:00
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:22.02.2021
23:01:19
th
After a lapse of about seven months, i.e., on 26 March, 2019, the matter
was reopened and listed for final hearing once again. The said order reads:
“ This matter needs further consideration with the
presence and arguments of learned counsels from
both sides.
List for final hearing on 17.07.2019.
Meanwhile, all the parties are directed to
file their extant briefs of written arguments, if they
so wish, in terms of Regulation 13 of the Consumer
Protection Regulations, 2005 at least four weeks
before the next date of hearing with copies in
advance to each other.
All parties be informed by the Registry
within ten days.”
Thereafter however, the matter was repeatedly adjourned. Arguments were
th
finally heard on 15 January, 2020 and the matter was reserved once again.
The said order reads:
“Heard arguments of the learned counsels for the
parties present except OP-1- Dr. Neelam Mishra,
Gynecologist.
Order reserved.”
Even after a lapse of more than one year, orders are yet to be pronounced in
this matter.
5. Mr. Bajaj, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that repeated
nd
enquiries have been made with the NCDRC but to no avail. On 2
December, 2020, an application was moved by the Petitioner seeking re-
hearing and pronouncement of judgment, despite which, the matter has not
been listed before any Bench. Repeatedly following up with the Registry has
also not borne any result. Ld. Counsel fairly submits that he has now
rd
received intimation that the application is now listed on 23 February, 2021.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATHIBA M SINGH
W.P.(C) 2207/2021 Page 2 of 10
Signing Date:22.02.2021 22:00
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:22.02.2021
23:01:19
6. The Supreme Court has, repeatedly, in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar,
(2001) 7 SCC 318 and Balaji Baliram Mupade & Anr. v. State of
th
Maharashtra & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 3564/2020, decided on 29
October, 2020] emphasised the importance of timely pronouncement of
judgments and orders once submissions are heard. The said judgements were
also considered by this Court in Deepti Khera v. Siddharth Khera [CM (M)
th
1637/2019, decided on 18 November, 2019] , The observations in Deepti
Khera (supra) where Anil Rai (supra) is also extracted are set out below:
“6. It is the settled position in law, as per the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Rai v. State of
Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 that once matters are reserved
for orders, usually, the same should be pronounced
within a time schedule. In Anil Rai (supra) it has been
observed as under:
“8. The intention of the legislature
regarding pronouncement of judgments can
be inferred from the provisions of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (1) of
Section 353 of the Code provides that the
judgment in every trial in any criminal court
of original jurisdiction, shall be pronounced
in open court immediately after the
conclusion of the trial or on some
subsequent time for which due notice shall
be given to the parties or their pleaders. The
words “some subsequent time” mentioned in
Section 353 contemplate the passing of the
judgment without undue delay, as delay in
the pronouncement of judgment is opposed
to the principle of law. Such subsequent time
can at the most be stretched to a period of
six weeks and not beyond that time in any
case. The pronouncement of judgments in
the civil case should not be permitted to go
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATHIBA M SINGH
W.P.(C) 2207/2021 Page 3 of 10
Signing Date:22.02.2021 22:00
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:22.02.2021
23:01:19
beyond two months.”
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Rai (supra)
has also passed certain guidelines regarding
pronouncement of judgments. The same are reproduced
below:
(i) The Chief Justices of the High Courts
may issue appropriate directions to the
Registry that in a case where the judgment is
reserved and is pronounced later, a column
be added in the judgment where, on the first
page, after the cause-title, date of reserving
the judgment and date of pronouncing it be
separately mentioned by the Court Officer
concerned.
(ii) That Chief Justices of the High Courts,
on their administrative side, should direct
the Court Officers/Readers of the various
Benches in the High Courts to furnish every
month the list of cases in the matters where
the judgments reserved are not pronounced
within the period of that month.
(iii) On noticing that after conclusion of the
arguments the judgment is not pronounced
within a period of two months, the Chief
Justice concerned shall draw the attention of
the Bench concerned to the pending matter.
The Chief Justice may also see the
desirability of circulating the statement of
such cases in which the judgments have not
been pronounced within a period of six
weeks from the date of conclusion of the
arguments amongst the Judges of the High
Court for their information. Such
communication be conveyed as confidential
and in a sealed cover.
(iv) Where a judgment is not pronounced
within three months from the date of
reserving it, any of the parties in the case is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATHIBA M SINGH
W.P.(C) 2207/2021 Page 4 of 10
Signing Date:22.02.2021 22:00
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:22.02.2021
23:01:19
permitted to file an application in the High
Court with a prayer for early judgment.
Such application, as and when filed, shall be
listed before the Bench concerned within
two days excluding the intervening holidays.
(v) If the judgment, for any reason, is not
pronounced within a period of six months,
any of the parties of the said lis shall be
entitled to move an application before the
Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer
to withdraw the said case and to make it over
to any other Bench for fresh arguments. It is
open to the Chief Justice to grant the said
prayer or to pass any other order as he
deems fit in the circumstances.
8. The Civil Procedure Code, 1908, prescribes thirty
days as the time in which a judgment should be
pronounced. Order XX Rule 1 of the CPC reads as
under:
“ 1. Judgment when pronounced . — [(1)
The Court, after the case has been heard,
shall pronounce judgment in an open Court,
either at once, or as soon thereafter as may
be practicable and when the judgment is to
be pronounced on some future day, the
Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of
which due notice shall be given to the
parties or their pleaders:
Provided that where the judgment is
not pronounced at once, every endeavour
shall be made by the Court to pronounce the
judgment within thirty days from the date on
which the hearing of the case was concluded
but, where it is not practicable so to do on
the ground of the exceptional and
extraordinary circumstances of the case, the
Court shall fix a future day for the
pronouncement of the judgment, and such
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATHIBA M SINGH
W.P.(C) 2207/2021 Page 5 of 10
Signing Date:22.02.2021 22:00
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:22.02.2021
23:01:19
day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond
sixty days from the date on which the
hearing of the case was concluded, and due
notice of the day so fixed shall be given to
the parties or their pleaders.]”
9. While this Court is conscious of the fact that there
are pressures on the Trial Courts, non-pronouncement of
orders for more than a year cannot be held to be
justified. It has been observed in several matters that
trial courts keep matters `FOR ORDERS’ for months
together and sometimes orders are not pronounced for
even 2-3 years. Thereafter the judicial officer is
transferred or posted in some other jurisdiction and the
matter has to be reargued. Such a practice puts
enormous burden on the system and on litigants/lawyers.
The usual practice ought to be to pronounce orders
within the time schedule laid down in the CPC as also the
various judgements of the Supreme Court. In civil cases
maximum period of two months can be taken for
pronouncing orders, unless there are exceptional cases
or there are very complex issues that are involved.
10. Accordingly, in respect of pronouncement of
orders, the following directions are issued:
i. When arguments are heard, the order
sheet ought to reflect that the matter is part-
heard;
ii. Upon conclusion of arguments, the order
sheet ought to clearly reflect that the
arguments have been heard and the matter
is reserved for orders. If the court is
comfortable in giving a specific date for
pronouncing orders, specific date ought to
be given;
iii. Orders ought to be pronounced in terms
of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Anil Rai (supra);
iv. The order ought to specify the date when
orders were reserved and the date of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATHIBA M SINGH
W.P.(C) 2207/2021 Page 6 of 10
Signing Date:22.02.2021 22:00
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:22.02.2021
23:01:19
pronouncement of the order.”
7. Most recently, the Supreme Court in SJVNL v. M/s CCM HIM JV &
th
Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 494/2021, decided on 12 February, 2021] has
reiterated its pronouncement in Anil Rai (supra) while clarifying that the
same would not apply to High Courts.
8. Thus, the above pronouncements would apply to Subordinate Courts
and Tribunals equally, inasmuch as there can be no justification even for
tribunals to repeatedly adjourn matters after hearing arguments and
reserving orders.
9. Specifically, in the context of delay in pronouncement of orders by
the NCDRC, the Supreme Court has, in Sudipta Chakrobarty & Anr. v.
Ranaghat S.D. Hospital & Ors., [Civil Appeal No. 9404/2019, decided on
th
15 February, 2021] , observed as under:
“1. In the present case, the reasoned order was
passed on 20.12.2019 by the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (“National
Commission” for short) in C.A. No. 9404 of 2019. A
fresh civil appeal was filed before this Court being
C.A. No. 6476 of 2020, which has been dismissed vide
Order dated 06.3.2020.
2. This Court had vide Order dated 08.1.2020
directed the Registrar of the National Commission to
submit a Report stating the number of cases in which
reasoned judgments had not been passed, even though
the operative order had been pronounced in Court. By
the report dated 27.7.2020, we have been informed
that as on 20.12.2019, there were 85 such cases in
which the operative order had been pronounced, but
reasoned judgments were not delivered so far.
3. The fact which has been brought to our notice by
the Registrar of the Commission can, in no manner,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATHIBA M SINGH
W.P.(C) 2207/2021 Page 7 of 10
Signing Date:22.02.2021 22:00
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:22.02.2021
23:01:19
be countenanced that between the date of operative
portion of the order and the reasons are yet to be
provided, or the hiatus period is much more than what
has been observed to be the maximum time period for
even pronouncement of reserved judgments. In State
of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi (1984) 1 SCC
596 in para 30, the Constitution Bench of this Court,
as far back in 1983, drew the attention of the
Courts/Tribunal of the serious difficulties which were
caused on account of a practice which was being
adopted by the adjudicating authorities including
High Courts/Commissions, that of pronouncing the
final operative part of the orders without supporting
reasons. This was later again discussed by this Court
in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318.
4. Undisputedly, the rights of the aggrieved parties
are being prejudiced if the reasons are not available
to them to avail of the legal remedy of approaching
the Court where the reasons can be scrutinized. It
indeed amounts to defeating the rights of the party
aggrieved to challenge the impugned judgment on
merits and even the succeeding party is unable to
obtain the fruits of success of the litigation.
5. The afore-mentioned principle has been
emphatically restated by this Court on several
occasions including in Zahira Habibulla M.
Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [(2004) 5 SCC 353 : AIR
2004 SC 3467 paras 80-82]; Mangat Ram v. State of
Haryana [(2008) 7 SCC 96 paras 5-10]; Ajay
Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2017) 3 SCC
330 : AIR 2017 SC 310] and more recently in Balaji
Baliram Mupade v. The State of Maharashtra (Civil
Appeal No. 3564 of 2020 pronounced on
29.10.2020) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zaixhu
Xie (Civil Appeal No. 4022 of 2020 pronounced on
11.12.2020) and SJVNL v. CCC HIM JV (Civil
Appeal No. 494 of 2021 pronounced on
12.02.2021) wherein the delay in delivery of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATHIBA M SINGH
W.P.(C) 2207/2021 Page 8 of 10
Signing Date:22.02.2021 22:00
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:22.02.2021
23:01:19
judgments has been observed to be in violation of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the
problems gets aggravated when the operative portion
is made available early, and the reasons follow much
later, or are not made available for an indefinite
period.
6. In the instant case, the operative order was
pronounced on 26.04.2019, and in the reasons
disclosed, there is a hiatus period of eight months.
7. Let this Order be placed before the President of the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
to look into the matter, and take necessary steps so
that this practice is discontinued, and the reasoned
Judgment is passed alongwith the operative order. We
would like to observe that in all matters where
reasons are yet to be delivered, it must be ensured
that the same are made available to the litigating
parties positively within a period of two months.
8. With these observations, the Appeal stands
disposed of.
9. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.”
10. The above judgement dealt with cases where the NCDRC pronounced
operative portions of orders with reasons to follow. In the present case, there
is no pronouncement of orders despite the long gap of time since arguments
were first heard. It needs no emphasis that the entire purpose of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which was supposed to provide speedy
justice to complainants, stands completely defeated in a case of this nature
where the matter has taken more than 15 years to be adjudicated. The matter
has still not reached a conclusion despite arguments having concluded in
2018 itself.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATHIBA M SINGH
W.P.(C) 2207/2021 Page 9 of 10
Signing Date:22.02.2021 22:00
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:22.02.2021
23:01:19
11. In the above facts and circumstances, the following directions are
issued to the NCDRC:
i) Whenever judgments are reserved, they ought to be pronounced
in accordance with the timelines prescribed in Anil Rai (supra);
ii) If orders are not pronounced within six months of being
reserved and an application is filed by either party, the same ought to
be listed before the President, NCDRC by the Registry of the NCDRC
within two days, without fail. The NCDRC may issue a practice
direction to this effect so that the same is complied with by the Staff
of the Registry;
12 . In the facts of this case, it is directed that since the matter has now
rd
been listed on 23 February, 2021, the bench of the NCDRC which has last
heard arguments, shall now pronounce its judgment within two weeks.
13. The petition is disposed of with the above directions. All pending
applications are also disposed of. Copy of this order be communicated by
the worthy Registrar General of this Court to the Registrar/Joint Registrar,
NCDRC who shall send a report of compliance within four weeks to the ld.
Registrar General, in respect of the pronouncement of judgment/order as
also in respect of the issuance of Practice Directions.
14. Ld. Registrar General to follow up the matter with the Registrar/Joint
Registrar, NCDRC to ensure compliance.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 18, 2021
Rahul/T
nd
(corrected and released on 22 February, 2021)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATHIBA M SINGH
W.P.(C) 2207/2021 Page 10 of 10
Signing Date:22.02.2021 22:00