Hon.
Chairman Sir, Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure
has been amended so as to take away the power of revision of the
High Courts against questioning orders. This revision was causing a lot of inconvenience
to the litigant against questioning orders filed in courts which are pending for
years and the suits are being stayed. This has been taken out. Of
course, the power of revision of the High Courts is there where no appeal lies.
I fully endorse this amended clause. About judgement, a new clause has been
introduced. The judgements should be delivered within a100 fortnight of the closing of the
hearing of the case. If that is not possible, with notice to the
parties,120 it should be
done within 30 days. This is very salutary. If the court finds that
it is not possible to deliver the judgement within 30 days, for reasons to
be recorded in writing, it can postpone the delivery of the judgement to a
subsequent date, giving notice to the parties. Therefore, the purpose of the
amendment would not be served ordinarily in cases where the judge
has to give notice to parties of judgement at a later date and200 I do not think the litigant will be
benefited. I am glad that another new order has been added which gives
the litigant the costs incurred by him prior to the filing of the suit. It is a
good thing.240 Previously, the
plaintiff who obtained a decree could not get the costs incurred by him
prior to the filing of the suit. Now, this has been included. It is a
good improvement. Under this provision, in such family suits, the courts
shall try to settle them before the trial begins. It is a good thing in family
matters like a300 husband
filing a suit for judicial separation or the wife filing a suit for
maintenance. There the courts will come to the aid of the parties and in camera
they could try to settle and see that they could come together. In most
cases, the courts will succeed in seeing that parties come to an
understanding without undergoing the trouble360
of lending evidence on either side. Similar provision should be made
where the subject matter of the suit does not exceed Rs. 3000. We have limited
the right of appeal to suits where the subject matter is more than400 Rs. 3000.
Sir,
similar provision should be thought of here also so that the court would come
to the rescue of the persons and see that the matter is settled. Now the
position is that assistance of lawyer would be given to the plaintiff. The High
Court is authorised to frame rules as it deems fit but God alone knows when the
High Court will frame such rules. Legal aid should not be taken as only
an assistance of480 a lawyer.
Now you are giving assistance of only lawyer to plaintiff who is needy. But
what about defendant who500
is also equally poor? I am not talking about poor defendants. He
is equally needy and he should be entitled to legal assistance.
This, of course, comes within the purview of legal aid. There is also
another proposal in the amending Bill that case which has been
brought, should be disposed of within sixty days. Under the election law, election
petitions are required to be disposed of within six months but they are never
disposed of within six months. They take years. So, it is only a pious
wish. Much time is taken up in serving notice of the appeal600 on the respondents. Though it
is a good thing, I doubt whether this will be achieved. Sir, none of
the objects for which the Amending Bill has been brought forward
can be achieved by this amending Bill. But the Bill is helpful in one respect.
It
has streamlined the procedure. It has removed doubts. It has removed conflict
of judicial decisions by codifying the law. On legal aid, the question is how
the litigant can have inexpensive justice, and also speedy justice.
Court fees have become major source of revenue for each State Government
and every year they raise court700
fees. It is impossible for the litigant to pay such high court fees. The
Law Minister told us that last720
year he had written to Chief Ministers about it. But there has been no
effect so far. When I spoke on Law Ministry's Demands this year, I said that
court fees should be kept within reasonable limits, and that they should not
be raised. Administration of justice is also a function of a State which is
a Welfare State. Another way of imparting inexpensive and speedy justice is to
decentralise the courts. Courts should be established at each block headquarters800
so that the litigant will not be compelled to take the witnesses
to the nearby cities. The witness is the major source of expenditure for
the litigants because witness has to be treated like an honoured guest.
Sir,
this Bill840 to improve the
service conditions of the Judges cannot provoke any opposition from any
quarter. But it is a pity that the Government has to come with this
measure as a consequence of a direction by the Supreme Court. I do not know
how it passed the scrutiny of an efficient person that an artificial
date cannot be fixed for900
granting the benefits of revised pension. It is obvious that a person who
retired on 31.10.1986 cannot be paid Rs. 4,500 and a person who retired on 30.11.1986
can be paid a pension of Rs. 4,500. On the fact of it, discrimination is
there now. So rightly, the Supreme Court960
directed and very rightly the Law Minister came forward with this measure.
The other things are: they are given a sumptuary allowance. It is not
so large. It is only Rs. 250 or Rs. 300 for giving a1000 cup of coffee or tea to those who come to
their house.
