Civil Trials Delayed

CIVIL TRIALS DELAYED CIVIL TRIALS DELAYED By Ali Hyder Qureshi, Senior Civil Judge, Larkana (1) What is the reason behind old age of a civil suit? (2) Are there procedural handicaps or self‑created methods to give rise to the age of the civil suit? (3) Why the system at work to deal and dispose of the civil suit has been made so confused that people of the country even ignorant of the law are afraid of the civil litigation? (4) What will be the effective measures to curb that dilemma? We shall try to sort out the answers of these questions and possibly solution thereof in the below mentioned commentary. In the first place the procedure at work is to be seen and evaluated whether or not it suffice the totality of the disposal either within a time or delay behind that. The life of a civil suit runs by the procedure contained under Code of the Civil Procedure. Our procedural law is derived from the law of England. In England errors of jurisdiction and other procedural handicaps are immediately rectifiable. The Code was originally re‑enacted and revised in 1882. That was not sufficient to the requisite level of procedure and again the Code was re -enacted with very substantial changes in 1908. At present we are governed with a Code of Procedure of 1908. This Code is complete and exhaustive for the entire age of civil suit towards its procedure. The Code is divided into two sections; namely Substantive Law and Procedural Law. The sections contained therein are Substantive Law and the orders and rules contained in the First Schedule of the Code is Procedural Law. At the time when Civil Procedure Code was re‑enacted, our country was part of England. Although the Civil Procedure was a codified law, applicable throughout in the Sub‑Continent where British rule existed yet the customs and traditions of Muslims and Hindus were looked into and the Code completely met the requirements prevalent to the individual community. The wisdom of the British Legislation was veil circumspect that traditions upon the Law would have definitely an overriding effect, the enactment of section 122 in the Code was, therefore, made, so that necessary amendments in the First Schedule of the Code could be made by the High Courts instead of Legislation process. This was made as an immediate relief. Although the distinction between substantive law and procedure is sharply drawn in theory, there are many rules of Procedure, 'which, in their practical operation, are wholly or substantially equivalent to rules of Substantive Law. Therefore, the orders and rules contained in the First Schedule of the Code cannot be altered or amended within the contemplation of section 122 of the Code. Salmond on Jurisprudence categorically defines on this subject that substantive law is that which defines the rights, while Procedural Law determines the remedies. Again it is provided with reference to remedies and rights within both Substantive Law and Procedure, that the former defines the remedies and rights; while the latter defines the modes and conditions of the application of the one to the other. Frequently the law of procedure contained in the First Schedule is much less a substantive law and does not cover the ingredients contained under section 122 of the Code, towards normal amendments. This clarification of law is found necessary to be made as the trial of the civil suit contains the procedure provided in the First Schedule of the Code. The Code on the substantive side has not been amended; however, some amendments in the First Schedule have been made by the Legislation from time to time; we will examine at the appropriate stage of the topic whether or not the changes brought in the Code through Reforms introduced mainly in 1972 and 1994, have proved useful to minimise the age of civil suit towards conclusion. From the experience to try the Civil Suits on original side many things have borne out whereby the Civil Litigation has been found hampered under the procedural complications which are rather self‑created methods. The reasons behind that are given hereto, vis‑a‑vis, the remedial measures to remove these hurdles. (1) IMPEDIMENTS IN THE STAGES OF A CIVIL SUIT According to Procedural Law and theory of jurisprudence the normal elements of Judicial Procedure are five in number; namely, Summons, Pleadings, Proof, Judgment and Execution. The object of the first is to secure for all parties interested an opportunity of presenting themselves before the Court and making their case heard; (ii) Pleadings formulate for the use of the Court and of the parties those questions of fact or law which are in issue; (iii) Proof is the process by which the parties supply the Court with the data necessary for the decision of those questions; (iv) Judgment is the decision itself; (v) While Execution, the last step in the proceedings, is the use of physical force in the maintenance of the judgment when voluntary submission is withheld. We will examine here categorically whether all these normal elements of Judicial Procedure are being followed in accordance with or we have opted different modes regulating the procedure. The purport of summon is to secure attendance of the defendant and inquire him as well into the oral interrogation either to admit or deny the case filed against him, within the mandatory requirements of Order 10, Rule 1 of C.P.C. The real purport of Summons issued for the defendant firstly, comes within Rule 5 of Order 5 of the Code, which provides for next stage, either for settlement of issues or final disposal of the suit. The issuance of Summons under order 5, Rule 5, C.P.C., resorts the provisions of Order 10, rule 1, C.P.C. which provides for ascertainment of the allegations to be made by the Court contained in the pleadings of the parties. The resort of Rule 2 of Order 10, is also to be made simultaneously by the Court whereby oral admissions of both the parties are to be recorded. In wake of the recorded facts the issues are to be framed on factual aspects exclusively. In rebuttal to the plaintiff's case the recorded facts become written statement and on the first hearing the issues are to be framed. After that if the Court "so requires" within the meaning of Rule 1 of Order 8, permit defendant to present written statement which will be called "further written statement" and issues thereafter will be amended. Unfortunately the aforesaid procedure, though mandatory in a form, is not being complied within our Courts. The procedure which is usually followed with is that the Courts are issuing Summons for the defendant to attend before the Court and file Written defence. Then matter goes for settlement of issues. The issues are exclusively framed from the pleadings which ex facie results nothing for partly disposal of those facts which if come under admissions. The procedure contained under Order 5, Rule 5; Order 10, Rules 1 and 2, is not being followed with by the Court; resultantly the controversy on the admission is too resolved through termination of the trial after evidence process. By doing so the suit goes to its old age unnecessarily. The provisions of Order 12, Rule 6, Order 10, rules 1 and 2, Order 15, Rule 1 of the Code, thus resulted futile and redundant. The issues on factual side are derived from the oral admissions and legal issues from the defence pleadings in the event of non‑scrutiny by the Court at the very outset during admission. Then the stage of proof comes when both the parties are required to supply the Court the data necessary for the decision of those questions on which their claim or denial is based upon. Proof is of sufficient theoretical interest to repay such abstract consideration. It is for the Court to distinguish shortly between the fact which is evidence and the, fact of which it is evidence. The former may be termed to be evidential fact, the latter the Principal fact. The Courts do not bother to distinguish between these two categories. After termination of the evidence the judgment is pronounced. If the usual recourse is complied with then judgment can be delivered within a reasonable time; but it is not an easy task to make the judgment within the aforesaid exceptions. The following are the hurdles in the proceeding of a civil suit: (i) The meanwhile interlocutory applications under various enactments filed in a suit, gives long life to the suit with a result that the line of action and original structure of the suit goes changed; (ii) Subsequent amendments inducted in the pleadings just to fill the gap to clear up the structure of a suit and inconsistent issues framed thereunder, also put embargo for the long life of the civil suit; (iii) Lack of experience on the part of Judges is also a cause to an inordinate delay in the civil suits; (iv) Advocates mind to delay the trial is also a main reason Unfortunately, there is no procedural recourse to curb that situation which is rather self‑creation and there is no way out in the procedure to control that. There are time and again amendments in the procedure to speed up the trial and avoid unnecessary delay; but no useful purpose seems to be served. The situation warrants to be nipped when the plaint is presented and admitted. If the admission of the plaint is efficiently after thorough check and balance, then there would be very little scope for amendments and meanwhile interlocutory applications. If the Pleadings are examined with admissions then relevant issues could be framed if the controversy requires the process of evidence. The recorded admissions will narrow down the scope of replications and amendments sought for the pleadings. For example, the plaintiff files a suit, then written statement is filed, definitely containing the demerits on factual aspects of the suit, vis‑a‑vis, the Legal flaws therein. The admissions are not recorded and case proceeds after settlement of issues. What would happen thereafter? Obviously the plaintiff side will attempt to clear up those lacunas which can be proved fatal blow. The recourse will be resolved through amendments. The sequence of the trial will naturally go disturbed. The Presiding Officer is made to postpone further trial unless the resolution of that controversy was decided. Would it be justifiable to do that by the party and simultaneously by the Court to allow that? The answer is ambiguous as the process of appeal and revision also favour that much irrespectively the decision or otherwise on the interlocutory application. The entire record is got summoned. (Though such procedure is not available in the Code and thereby the entire trial is held up. Is it a Public Policy or the administration of justice to interrupt the proceedings in the Lower Court for that controversy which was not subjective? His lordship Manzoor Qadir while disposing of the legal reference under a case reported in PLD 1964 (W.P.) Karachi, was pleased to observe at page No. 149 as follows: "It is, of course, true that it is extremely, for reasons of Public Policy, that proceedings in Lower Courts should not be interrupted unnecessarily. If they are, the whole course of the administration of justice is deflected. Since the interruption of trial means a stay of proceedings, the convenience to the party against whose interest the stay operates, is great. Frequently, the whole substance of the relief is negatived because of postponement, adjournment or stay." Further answers will be found in the following paragraphs:‑‑ (2) INJUNCTIONS AND CIVIL JUSTICE COMMITTEE REPORT The injunction applications are inevitable to be addendum alongwith the other reliefs in a civil suit. The relief of an injunction application is distinguished in the civil terminology as a consequential relief and in some cases a direct relief when title is not disputed. This relief happens to be in the scenario of a suit irrespectively it is being obtained at the different stages with different pleas. Prior to Civil Reforms Act, 1994, the interim injunction order passed by the Court had no time limit and an injunction order once obtained was to be ending even on termination of the trial. The status quo orders formally passed by the Courts were taking time of years together without any conclusion. A very comprehensive and crucial amendment had been brought by the legislation under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 with some insertions whereby the age of the injunction application as a whole has been fixed at six months only. The procedure for extension stands provided which takes secondary scope owing to vacation of the first order as a whole. The intention of the law‑makers was only to minimise the age of litigation. They were of the view that lesser the age of an injunction application better would be the chances for conclusion of the trial within stipulated time of six months. The amendment in the injunction application has been made with reference to Civil Justice Committee Report issued in 1925. The Civil Justice Committee in India while scrutinizing the main aspects of the procedure adopted by the Courts which impeded the requisite procedure towards termination of the trial, also viewed with displeasure as to practice and procedure for the injunction application taken by the Courts to be unwarranted. It would be advantageous to seek reference from that report within its relevant extract herewith: "It appears to us that interlocutory injunctions are through India, granted much too freely and without sufficient care to impose terms. There is moreover a specially noticeably freedom in the granting of such orders ex parte. It seems to be very inadequately appreciated that the right to an interlocutory injunction and the right to have it granted ex parte are two very different things. We have been struck by the fact that in cases in which it is clear from the plaint itself that the parties have been at difference for months as to a right in immovable property, the plaintiff has been granted an ex parte injunction to restrain digging or building operations on the part of defendant in possession. One can readily see that a plaintiff by such an order is put at once into a strategic position. Indeed a lax practice in granting such orders is an open invitation to blackmail. We do not attempt to set out here principles governing the grant of interlocutory injunctions or the special conditions under which it is right to grant them ex parte. It may be that a reiteration of these by circular orders of the High Courts would do something to improve the practice." This report further provides under Chapter 45 as follows: "The causes of the evil are, however, complex. The first cause is that Junior Officers not considered fit to exercise very high small cause Court powers have under the ordinary procedure to deal with applications for injunctions. The smaller the value of the right alleged to be infringed the more likely it is that such applications will come before Junior Officers. Such Officers are not always able to appreciate the business consequences of the orders they make. For the purpose of an ex parte application they are far too uncritical of plaints and affidavits. They do riot appreciate the unfair advantage which plaintiffs constantly seek to get by lying by, by pretending that they have just heard of an invasion of their rights and by putting forward ludicrous suggestions of irreparable damage. Experience shows that the great majority of the affidavits with the words "irreparable damage" and proof of little save the absence of irreparable damage. In many cases the plaints and affidavit fail utterly to explain that anything has happened in the last few days to justify a sudden claim to interference with the defendant from behind his back. Thus we think that a main cause of the bad practice is in experience and weakness on the part of Officers. Another cause we believe to be that Courts are too apt to look merely at the rules in Order 39 of the Code. These rules are a statement of the general conditions under which interlocutory injunction may be granted. They are a statement... that is to say... of the powers of the Court. The question whether such an order should be granted involves a great deal more than mere compliance with these conditions. It involves a certain amount both of law and common sense. By rule 3 of this Order the Court is required before granting an injunction to direct notice to be given of the application to the opposite‑party, in all cases except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay. It is much to be wished that the subordinate Courts would appreciate that an interlocutory injunction should be granted ex parte only in very exceptional circumstances and practically speaking should never be granted unless the plaintiff establishes in a convincing manner that by no reasonable diligence on his part could be avoided the necessity of applying behind the back of the defendant." The Civil Justice Committee Report in the conclusion gives some suggestions to the Courts granting ex parte interlocutory injunction just to avoid anything contrary to the law and requisite procedure and also for the inspection officers to maintain checks and balances in the live orders of subordinate Courts "What is wanted is that the material upon which ex parte injunction are granted should be scrutinized in as many cases as possible by the Inspecting Officer when he finding them to have been insufficient he should go through them with his subordinate and explain their insufficiency. If the subordinate Officers ideas are defective as to the principles which should govern the exercise of the powers given by Order 39 the Inspecting Officer will have every opportunity to discover the defects. The order as formally drawn up should be very carefully examined. It should be noticed whether any provision has been made for ensuring to the defendant an early opportunity to be heard or whether the order made ex parte has been limited to take effect for a substantial or for an indefinite time. A very important matter for inquiry is whether or not the Court granting the injunction ex parte has been prayed with the plaintiff failing to pay the process fee, failing to supply an identifier or failing to serve some pro forma defendant in the same interest? If so, it will be desirable to inquire as to what step was taken by the Court. It may be found that the some order by which the ex parte injunction was granted gave the plaintiff a week in which to deposit the process fee or it may be found that when the defendant appeared to contest the injunction the Court was engaged in trying old suits and adjourned the matter for months or adjourned it for the plaintiff or his pleader's convenience, or in order to let the plaintiff make a new case. An inspection which is worth anything will always disclose the merits or demerits of the way in which injunction matters have been handled. " The recent insertions of rules (2‑A) and (2‑B) respectively under rule 2 of Order 39, Civil Procedure Code are apparently in view of the recommendations of the Civil Justice Committee Report under chapter 45. Notwithstanding the said amendments made by the Civil Laws Reforms Act 1994, the High Court of Sindh from time to time issued circulars to regulate the procedure for subordinate Civil Courts as under:‑‑ (i) The quarterly inspection of the subordinate Civil Courts through District Judges; (ii) Scrutiny of the interlocutory orders passed by the Civil Courts through District Courts in each and every matter; (iii) The deposit of Rs. 200 towards process fees in advance by the plaintiff at the time of admission of the plaint just to save the time; (iv) The disposal of injunction application within three months' time positively after issuance of notice or grant of ex parte injunction order; (v) An intimation to the High Court by the subordinate Civil Court for grant of injunction orders passed against the Government. All these steps are obviously in consonance with the recommendations of Civil Justice Committee Report, 1925, which carry an implied force to apt its suggestions in an imperative sense by the subordinate Civil Courts. Taking all these propositions to the degree of compliance the recourses of delay could be curtailed. It is noticed in the instituted suits before the Court that the prayers are couched with emphasis that ex parte injunction orders at the very outset be passed after considering the whatever material placed ‑on the record. The experience has shown us that the given situation in the plaint does not exist at or on the subject‑matter. The intention happens to be that the ex parte injunction order would legalise all the illegalities and non‑possession of the plaintiff in the first instance which could be subsequently regarded and regulated by all the possible means through different viamedias. The use of force in these circumstances cannot be eliminated, coupled with the law enforcing or administrative agency could come to the undue rescue of that person who is holding the Court's order in the shape of a sword. The Courts do not know the existing position on the site. The ex parte injunction order to believe the possession at the very outset is blind and obliging one which leaves very serious consequences on the site. Even no ultimate conclusions could be drawn on that blind order .when the, defendant denies the plaintiff's possession. In these circumstances the ex parte injunction order is suggested to be avoided without inspection of the site either by Court or commission which is very crucial particularly for that issue on which point of possession is involved. The Superior Courts have also realised to that much which is evident from the case‑law propounded in PLD 1995 SC 572: "Before issuing stay/injunction orders, Courts must carefully examine and consider the documents relied upon by the parties in proof of title, possession etc, of the property in dispute. In case of doubt, the Court may appoint Commissioner for verification of actual position at site. A little care on the part of Civil Courts would save citizens from untold hardships and also help maintaining public peace and tranquillity." (3) SUITS BY OR AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT There are two procedures applicable to the defendants, when they come on their defence. The procedure as to suit against the private defendant is to regulate with reference to Order VIII, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, whereby 30 days' time is provided to file the written statement. For the suit against the Government, the procedure contained under Order 27 is to follow. The applicable rules are 5 and 7 of Order 27, which merely relate to answer the plaint. No time frame has been provided in these rules to fix the written statement. On the contrary latitude has been provided to the defendant/Government to seek for extensions. The time limit to file written statement by the Government when there is no notice to the Government has been provided under the proviso of section 80 which is 90 days. The computation of time is conceived to be 90 days as the procedure of notice to the Government under section 80 is now obligatory due to amendment introduced under the Civil Reforms, 1972. It means that to conclude the pleadings towards trial, two procedures are to be followed by the Court. Notwithstanding the time frame of 30 days for private defence, the Government can protract the proceedings even for more than a year when the Court is made to await for the authority to be furnished by the Government. The procedure of the suits against the Government is without time limit and the authorized agent of the Government happens to be a Government Pleader, who resorts all the rules of Order 27 before bringing the written statement on behalf of the Government. The procedure in or against the Government suit in wake of the Order 27 Civil Procedure Code, sections 79 and 80, Civil Procedure Code and 58 of Sindh Law Officers Rules, provides that if the defence of the suit against the Government is sanctioned or if Government undertakes the defence of a suit against an Officer in his Official capacity, a draft of written statement is to be filed in answer to the plaint shall be submitted by the Government Pleader to the concerned Government either Provincial or Central for approval and the written statement, as approved or revised by the Government shall be subscribed and verified by the Government Pleader whose duty it is under Order 27, Rules 5 and 8(1) of the Civil Procedure Code to answer to the plaint'. In the case of a suit of the latter class the Government order sanctioning the defence is to be deemed to be the Government Pleaders authority to appear and answer to the plaint and he shall at once on receipt thereof move the Court to cause a note of his authority to be entered in the register, but shall not produce such resolution in case. When sending the draft written statement for approval, the Government Pleader shall state the date fixed for filing it in Court. Can these legal propositions fix the time frame for the written statement to be filed by the Government in Court? Rules 5 and 7 of Order 27, make the Court to show a grace in favour of the Government Pleader for extension of time to enable him to obtain orders from the authority to contest into the matter. Non‑fixation of the time frame handicaps the Court and awarding unnecessary latitude to the Government; moreover so when there is no certainty whether or not the Government will come on defence. With reference to rules 5 and 7, the Government Pleaders could consume a time of months together on the pretext of false assurance to the Court that reply or sanction of the suit is yet awaited from the Government". Under the proviso of section 80 of Civil Procedure Code, the time frame for the defence by the Government without notice to the Government has been provided at 90 days. Can the computation of time to file written statement by the Government will be counted with reference to proviso of section 80 of Civil Procedure Code, pressing mandatory for 90 days or Government Pleader would be graced to obtain the order or sanction from the Government and unless he does so the Court may act at his discretion as is provided under rules 5 and 7 of Order 27, Civil Procedure Code? The simple reply would be that the Court has to apt for the procedure given under the Procedural Law and for that the reference from Rules 5 and 7 of Order 27, Civil Procedure Code would be made to enable the Government Pleader to obtain orders or sanction from the Government. The Courts are to act at his discretion by extending the time to a Government Pleader. The time frame is necessary to be fixed for the Government to file written statement under rules 5 and 7 of Order 27 of the Civil Procedure Code by necessary legislative change. (4) REMAND OF THE SUIT Any decree passed by the Civil Court after termination of evidence is appealed under section 96 of Civil Procedure Code. The Procedure of the appellate trial is provided under Order 41 and its related rules. Upon rule 22 of Order 41, there is a formal procedure to entertain the appeal. The pregnant provisions to decide the fate of appeal in entirety start by rule 23. This rule provides remand of the case by the Appellate Court and this provision is distinguished as an easy provision as no labour is to put on the whole judgment of the original Court except that the remand is to be effected by setting aside the judgment after holding some points in the original judgment repugnant to any legal or factual recourse. The resort of this provision in deed makes no end of the litigation. Actually this provision is to be exercised in exceptional cases when finding that the decision recorded by the Civil Court is mere on a preliminary point. What is the preliminary point? It is indeed a crucial question which has been discussed by the Superior Courts under various cases. The true meaning of this term has been given under PLD 1973 Supreme Court 206, wherein it is provided that the "Preliminary point" refers to any issue of Law or fact the decision of which avoids full hearing of the suit. To that effect the instance has been quoted that when the Court after recording evidence on all the issues decides only a Preliminary issue and not the other issues it will be a disposal of the suit on a preliminary point. Under the AIR 1925 Calcutta 716, it is provided that possibly the suit may be decided on the basis of a number of preliminary points in which case the Appellate Court must decide all the preliminary points. There are many other provisions cited under the rules of order 41, Civil Procedure Code, which give Appellate Court the power to take cognizance into the Civil suit towards its trial in the same manner as that of an original Court. Rule 24 makes the Appellate Court to give judgment when evidence on record is sufficient and only the issues are to be resettled but the same evidence is to be used for the ultimate conclusion. Under rule 25, the Appellate Court, if realises insufficiency of the issues or omission of any material issue then such issue is to be framed by the Appellate Court, which will refer the case for trial to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred. In these circumstances the judgment or decree is not to be made set aside but to postpone until such proposed issue is being tried by the same Court alongwith findings of that Court thereon. Under rule 26, the either party has been allowed to prefer memorandum of the objection on that finding for which time is to be fixed by the Appellate Court. The intention of the framers of law was purely that whatever evidence or documentary references relied upon or referred to, by the parties on the original side were absolute and conclusive and no room was left for the Appellate Court to accept the subsequent evidence, if offered by any of the parties, unless the lower Court has declined to admit that evidence. The discretion is left with the Appellate Court under clause (b) of Rule 27 to invite for any document or evidence from either party in the fitness of things to deliver the judgment in its entirety or for another substantial cause. Under rule 28, the Appellate Court alike an original Court has been made to take such evidence by itself or direct the original Court or some other Court subordinate to it, to take such evidence and then send the case papers back to it. On the additional evidence the Appellate Court has to define or specify the points on which the evidence is to be got recorded. If all these legal provisions are taken to the hilt then it will become clear that an appeal is to be decided with reference to all the reasonable measures with such a comprehensive finding by which all the lapses of Civil Court be rectified. That judgment in appeal could be guideline to the concerned Civil Court for the future. All these applicable rules of Order 41 would definitely show the intention of law that the litigant public may not suffer to their long trials. It will be useful to note that the previous age of the suit goes away with an order to effect the remand of a suit by making the judgment set aside, recording on all the issues. The case is renumbered with the original Court. The same Court will feel itself confused to pass a new and isolated findings than already recorded findings for the reason of complex and inferiority and lack of experience. Experience has shown us that even more than for one time the suits are being remanded to same Court on mere technicalities. Many cases are being remanded on the legal points to be tried afresh by the subordinate Civil Court. In these circumstances what would be the fate of litigants who have merely to change the Courts without any progress or ultimate results in their cases. There are number of examples with us that provision of remand is being exercised by the Appellate Court with all exceptions and without touching prevailing merits available in the case. The purport of remand is nothing but to cancel the Civil Court's judgment with a simple narration that some necessary aspects were left by the original Civil Court which warrant opening of the case with a fresh evidence. Some additional issues are also to be framed for fresh adjudication. New evidence is also advised to be adduced but the judgment is to be made set aside with directions to again record the judgment. What is the fate of previous judgment? Whether whole judgment or point of the judgment has been set aside or whether previous all issues were redundant and unnecessarily framed? If all the previous issues are to be retired and fresh judgment is to be given then what was the legal impediment in the way of Appellate Court to pass the judgment by itself when judgment of the Civil Court was found deficient. Likewise the effective measures over the interlocutory orders passed by the subordinate Civil Court which go for scrutiny through the process of circulars, the decisions on appeal containing remand of the suit with an order of set aside, be also made for scrutiny. It may be appreciated that the decision of remand does not go to the eyes of Superior Courts as the parties are again made to approach the same Civil Court for fresh proceedings. The age of civil suit is likely to be decreased if the provision of Rule 23 of Order 41 is only taken into applicable circumstances and remand of the case while setting aside the judgment is avoided. (5) EFFICACY OF REPLICATIONS UPON TRIAL AND LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO CURB THEM It is the usual practice prevalent in the civil suits that interim interlocutory applications on any stage of the suit under various enactments are being filed through advocates. The advocates know that there would be no any embargo put upon them for non‑filing of these replications irrespectively the regular process of the trial is hampered. The majority of the interlocutory applications usually filed in the meanwhile stages of the trial have been curtailed within their scope under the Civil Laws (Reforms) Act, 1994, which is as under:‑‑ (i) The age of the injunction application has been made to its fixed term. (ii) For the documents and their admissibility under Order 13, both the parties have been made to their examination before the Court in admission or denial of the document. (iii) The certificate of readiness to adduce evidence on the first hearing has been made mandatory and punitive under Rule 12 of Order 16, in case of failure. (iv) The comprehensive factual issues are to be framed by the Court without assistance of the parties or their advocates in view of oral admissions of parties, which provision has been made mandatory by substitution. (v) For the effective and quick service the electric device of communication has been provided under rule 20 of Order 5, Civil Procedure Code, by which the Court has to little weight for the prompt results. Apparently all these changes made under Civil Law Reforms Act have minimised and reduced the scope of replications. Whatever applicable interlocutory applications in the civil trial have been made to their disposal under the Civil Law Reforms, 1994, with quick and rapid results. The stay application has been made to its fix tenure, which has saved the bulkiness of the file. The documents produced at the later stage provides summary disposal without wastage of the time. The issues can easily be framed by the Court in the contemplation of oral examination of the parties without inviting assistance from them. The certificate of readiness to proceed the case on the first hearing leaves no room for the party to the Court discretion unless an amount of Rs. 2,500 is reimbursed by that party in case of non‑examination. The termination of the evidence has fixed the date of decision through the hearing of arguments for which time frame of 15 days has been provided. In spite of all these things some other things are also needed to effect the compliance of the Civil Law (Reforms) Act , 1994, in its entirety. The provision of Order 10(2), Civil Procedure Code has been made mandatory by substitution a word 'may' to the word 'shall'. By this provision the oral examination of the contesting parties with reference to their pleadings is to be made before the Court. The case of one party will be put before another party and then admissions or ascertainment of the facts will be extracted from them. The Court will go to note down in the form of admission or denial to that factual controversy. Then the Court is to look into those admissions whether or not whole suit or any portion therefrom warrants its disposal or the litigation is to go ahead through the evidence process. The intention of the legislation to make this provision appears to be that the factual aspects will be highlighted before the Court which will be struck with a facility to an ultimate conclusion towards partly decision or to proceed further by framing issues in the contemplation of recorded admissions. There is no provision cited under any of the rules of Order 10, that the admitted part be either decreed or dismissed. The exception for announcing the judgment has been provided under Order 10, Rule 4(2), Civil Procedure Code which reveals ex parte decision in the event of absence of either party among the contestants. Can that provision be used for the decision of suit in view of admitted facts? To find the answer we will go to the related provisions which too carry the same magnitude into their entirety The admission or denial in the pleadings and to their ascertainment through oral examination is provided under rules 1 and 2 of Order 10 Civil Procedure Code, which gives the time to do that by the Court on the first hearing of the suit. The first hearing in the suit comes after party pleadings. The Court is to examine the parties with reference to their pleadings and will sort out the relevant parts of the recorded admissions and denials. The procedure as to judgment on admission has been given under Order 12, Rule 6, Civil Procedure Code, which provides at any stage of the suit. Any stage of the suit may be before termination of the trial; but starting line would be after party pleadings. This provision has been made obligatory which in fact warrants a mandatory form. The similar provision is cited under Rule 1 of Order 15, Civil Procedure Code, which also show the disposal of the suit on the first hearing when the parties were not found at issue on any question of law or fact. This provision too is cited in an obligatory form. Leaving the discretion with Court to pronounce the judgment or not. The close examination of these provisions namely Order 10, Rules 1 and 2, Order 12, Rule 6, Order 15, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, reveals that the efficacy of admissions either oral or recordical, if examined finder Rules 1 and 2 of Order 10, Civil Procedure Code, will bear the procedure to write the judgment under Order 12, Rule 6. When the case of one party is admitted by another party, what makes difficult the Court to frame controversial issues. Under these circumstances the disposal of the suit is provided under Order 15(1), Civil Procedure Code. Notwithstanding the similarity of all these three provisions, the procedure as is envisaged under Order 12(6), Civil Procedure Code, is exhaustive with much latitude providing the procedure of judgment directly. These two provisions under Orders 12(6) and 15(1), Civil Procedure Code, patently merit mandatory form vis‑a‑vis Order 10(2), Civil Procedure Code. It would be reiterated that no provision of judgment has been provided under any rule of Order 10, Civil Procedure Code in a case of decision warranted on admission. From where the procedure will be borrowed? The question is patently without answer. The mandatory form of Order 15(1); Civil Procedure Code will bring the end of legal aspects besides factual at the very outset. Order 12(6), Civil Procedure Code and 15(1), Civil Procedure Code require the attention of legislation. The writer is a Civil Judge, dealing the first class civil suits. Whatever experienced by him in the course of proceedings and advisory to the legislative changes to avoid delay in the civil suits, has been incorporated under this article. Any legal lapse in the fitness of things with miscalculation within Procedural Substantial Law is, however, regretted.