Updated: Sep 17
Mr. Srinibas Nayak
SOA National Institute of Law,
Siksha 'O' Anusandhan, Deemed to be University,
It cannot be denied that when saviour is illusory, even the greatest of vessels sink in seconds. Even not out of place to scribe that the birth of satisfaction occurs not with mere assurances, but only on implementation of such assurances. When the above wordings are in relation to the judiciary, needless to say, the existing feeble faith of its subjects on it would see its grave. The exigency of medication, healing the wound of despair of man on law, is the prime concern for the restoration of reciprocity between the judiciary and its subjects.
Experiencing life behind the bars for years, accused receiving solace of acquittal; plaintiff blessed with a decree after, as long as, 10 years of rigorous trial, finding both skin and property in dire straits - innumerable instances of many such prolonged lis are not new to the pedestrians on the highway of the judiciary. Slogans to the extent "Justice delayed is justice denied", 'End crime not criminal”, “JAAGO GRAHAK JAAGO”, are mere echoes sans trembling the self-made and rock-solid pedestal of judiciary. Providing room for a multiplicity of litigations is very much like applying salt to the wound of delay in imparting justice, the ignominy of judiciary again being the issue, for nothing but the callousness in implementation of its assurances.
Illustratively, in a suit for Specific Performance of Contract, a stranger to the contract claiming proprietary right basing on title deeds, over the property for which the contract was entertained, cannot be impleaded as a party to the suit, for the sole reason that he not being a party to the contract is not a necessary party to the suit for the specific performance of the same - Apex Court's decisive assent to substantial findings of various High Courts. Such assent not only makes multiplicity of proceedings inevitable, but provides a platform for mischief mongers to strip off one's rightful property leaving him stranded with a tacit compulsion of being lis-prone. Isn't it like asking the claimant to claim the fruit when its pulp has been eaten away? Isn't it like fueling for propulsion of misdeeds, instead of being a blockade for such? Isn't it otherwise an illusory assurance of judiciary for expeditious disposal of lis?
It is virtually impossible to bring a stoppage to the shower of such leading questions when redresser inflict injuries. When law eyes at the demise of litigations, such mechanisms of judiciary in proliferating lis is, undoubtedly, hostile to purport of law. How can the law be a silent spectator to unlawful infliction of injuries rather than coming to rescue at its inception ?! Prevention being better than cure, the act of opting for curative methods without being preventive, is not prudence. And, when the said act is accredited by non-other than the highest court of law of any nation, as by our Apex Court, illustratively reported in AIR 2005 SC 2813, it would not be out of place to murmur that man's faith on justice has begun its countdown.
Should a stranger to a contract, claiming proprietary right over property contracted, be impleaded as a party to a suit for Specific Performance of the same, for he is a necessary party? An affirmative answer will undoubtedly make critics silent as to the loss of man's faith in the judiciary. Needs no mention that, the assurance of expeditious disposal of lis will be in oblivion, when the multiplicity of proceedings is encouraged, however tacitly it may be.
For an epoch-making era of judiciary, implementation of thoughts in the interest of the public at large is more a necessity, than the mere thoughts opined by the judiciary acting as precedents. We the subjects await with all eagerness for such day to arrive sooner than later.