The Hindu : Justice after 15 years, but jail too

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, May 17, 2003

National

National

Justice after 15 years, but jail too

By Our Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI May 16. A litigant whose land was encroached upon had to wait for 15 years knocking at various courts in the process for evicting the encroacher. Ultimately, he got justice from the Supreme Court but before that he was sent to jail for four days for contempt of court.

A Bench, comprising Justice R.C. Lahoti and Justice Brijesh Kumar, disposing of a petition said the present case was one harrowing tale of law's delays, causing frustration in the mind of the person who was deprived of his property.

Though he rushed to court at the earliest point of time, he faced adjournment after adjournment for over five years without any substantial progress at the trial court in Rajasthan. Then several revision petitions were filed in the High Court at interlocutory stages, contributing to the delay, adding fuel to the fire of the plaintiff's agony.

In this case, Anil Panjwani entered into an agreement in 1985 for purchasing a piece of land and the owner allowed him to occupy it, around which he erected a fence. However, in 1987 to his surprise he noticed that some construction was taking place in the land and he moved the court and got a favourable decree. However, the defendant, Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya, filed an appeal in the Supreme Court and status quo was ordered.

Out of frustration, Mr. Panjwani filed affidavits with certain averments against a judge of the apex court for ordering status quo. Contempt proceedings were initiated and he was jailed for four days and later released on bail.

He appeared in person, expressed apology and withdrew his affidavits.

The Bench expressed anguish that for a simple suit involving the least issues and almost nil complications, either on facts or in law, 40 adjournments, spread over 5 1/2 years were given in the trial court. Various appeals were filed thereafter.

The Bench said these circumstances could, if at all, evoke a sense of sympathy with the contemnor but it could not provide any justification for such unfounded scurrilous outbursts in the affidavits against a judge of this court. The Bench, however, accepted his apology and purged him of the contempt. The Bench did not agree with the finding of the courts below that Mr. Panjwani was the rightful owner of the plot as the sale was not completed.

While restraining the defendant from interfering with possession of the plaintiff, it directed the trial court to dispose of his application for specific performance consistent with this judgment.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National