Kept Matter Pending For Considerably Long Time: Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Enquiry Against Trial Court Judge

The High Court was considering a Miscellaneous Civil Case filed under Order 39 Rule 2A, CPC, alleging defiance of an earlier interim order.

The Single Bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia held, “Although the trial Court might be right in obtaining spot inspection report, but that report should have been considered after recording evidence of witnesses and the trial Court should have come to a conclusion as to whether temporary injunction order was breached by any of the parties or not, but nothing of that sort has been done. Apart from that, the trial Court kept the matter pending for considerably long time.”

“Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that conduct of the trial Judge requires an enquiry”, it added.

Advocate Anand V. Bhardwaj represented the Applicants, while Advocate Abhishek Singh Bhadoriya represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was the case of the applicant that by the interim order, the parties were directed to maintain the status quo as it existed on the date of passing of the order. However, in spite of the aforesaid order, the respondents started raising construction over the disputed property. Considering that the dispute was whether there had been a breach of the interim order, the Co-Ordinate Bench of the High Court held that the allegations required an enquiry and evidence.

The Trial Court was directed to conduct an enquiry regarding the violation of the interim order by raising construction on the disputed property. Despite the aforesaid direction, the enquiry report was not sent and, accordingly, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhind, was directed to issue necessary directions to the Trial Court not to show any lethargic attitude towards the directions given by the Court specifically when more than one year and six months had passed. However, the Trial Court did not conduct any enquiry and obtained a spot inspection report from the Executive Engineer, PWD. The High Court, vide an order, noted that the Trial Court had merely obtained a spot inspection report and did not conduct any enquiry as directed. It was further noticed by the High Court that the trial Court had forwarded the report directly to the Court, thereby not giving any opportunity to the Principal District and Sessions Judge to go through the report.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noticed that a detailed enquiry report was received from the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhind, and he had found that the Trial Judge was negligent in discharging his duties. “The trial Judge has also given his explanation and has tendered his apology for the mistake committed by him. However, the explanation given by the trial Judge is not satisfactory because he has not assigned any reasons for not recording the evidence of witnesses before submitting the report”, it added.

Thus, holding that the conduct of the Trial Judge required an enquiry, the Bench ordered, “Since the trial Court has not submitted the enquiry report as required by this Court by order dated 4/4/2024, accordingly, Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhind is directed to assign this case to some other Civil Judge so that the enquiry can be conducted as per the directions given by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 4/4/2024.”

The Bench also ordered that the Court to whom the enquiry should be assigned by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhind would have to complete the enquiry within four months and the Court would not rely upon the report of Executive Engineer, PWD which was sent by the trial Court on earlier occasion because the said spot inspection appeared to have been done in the absence of parties. “The Court is also granted liberty to direct for appointment of local Commissioner if it is found necessary”, it concluded.

Cause Title: Ashok Kumar and Others v. Smt. Meera Devi (Case No.: MCC No. 39 of 2022)

Click here to read/download Order