Human rights litigants friendly sensitization – human rights of litigants, delay in justice and legla aid, Legal Services Authorities act

1. LITIGANTS FRIENDLY
SENSITIZATION – HUMAN
RIGHTS OF LITIGANTS,
DELAY IN JUSTICE AND
LEGAL AID.
:Prepared by:
H. S. MULIA
1

2. Question:- What do you
think, how many types of
Civil Suits can be filed
before the Civil Court?
2

3. Answer:- 49 Types of Civil
Suits.
Please see Appendix – A
(3) relating to Plaints.
3

4. Question :- Which
provisions of CPC enable
the Civil Court to dispose
of Civil Suit expeditiously
but most of us have not
utilized it so far?
4

5. Answer :- O – 5, R – 5; O-
10, R- 2; O-11 R-1 to 23
5

6. Question:- What steps
would you take to curb
the prevailing delay in
Civil litigation System?
6

7. Answer:- The existing system can
be drastically changed or
improved, if the following steps
are taken by the trial courts while
dealing with the civil trials. In the
case of Ramrameshwari Devi and
others v. Nirmala Devi and others
(2011) 8 SCC 249 : (AIR 2011 SC
(Civ) 1776 : 2011 AIR SCW 4000),
Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed as under:-
7

8. A. Pleadings are foundation of the
claims of parties. Civil litigation is
largely based on documents. It is
the bounden duty and obligation
of the trial judge to carefully
scrutinize, check and verify the
pleadings and the documents filed
by the parties. This must be done
immediately after civil suits are
filed.
8

9. B. The Court should resort to
discovery and production of
documents and interrogatories at
the earliest according to the object
of the Code. If this exercise is
carefully carried out, it would
focus the controversies involved in
the case and help the court in
arriving at truth of the matter and
doing substantial justice.
9

10. C. Imposition of actual,
realistic or proper costs and
or ordering prosecution
would go a long way in
controlling the tendency of
introducing false pleadings
and forged and fabricated
documents by the litigants.
10

11. Imposition of heavy costs
would also control unnecessary
adjournments by the parties. In
appropriate cases the courts
may consider ordering
prosecution otherwise it may
not be possible to maintain
purity and sanctity of judicial
proceedings.
11

12. D. The Court must adopt
realistic and pragmatic
approach in granting mesne
profits. The Court must
carefully keep in view the
ground realities while
granting mesne profits.
12

13. E. The courts should be
extremely careful and cautious
in granting ex-parte ad interim
injunctions or stay orders.
Ordinarily short notice should
be issued to the defendants or
respondents and only after
hearing concerned parties
appropriate orders should be
passed.
13

14. F. Litigants who obtained ex-
parte ad interim injunction
on the strength of false
pleadings and forged
documents should be
adequately punished. No
one should be allowed to
abuse the process of the
court.
14

15. G. The principle of
restitution be fully applied
in a pragmatic manner in
order to do real and
substantial justice.
15

16. H. Every case emanates
from a human or a
commercial problem and
the Court must make
serious endeavour to
resolve the problem within
the framework of law and in
accordance with the well
settled principles of law and
justice. 16

17. I. If in a given case, ex parte
injunction is granted, then the
said application for grant of
injunction should be disposed
of on merits, after hearing both
the sides, as expeditiously as
may be possible on a priority
basis and undue adjournments
should be avoided. (Rule 3A of
Order XXXIV of the CPC)
17

18. J. At the time of filing of the plaint,
the trial court should prepare
complete schedule and fix dates
for all the stages of the suit, right
from filing of the written
statement till pronouncement of
judgment and the courts should
strictly adhere to the said dates
and the said time table as far as
possible.
18

19. If any interlocutory application
is filed then the same be
disposed of in between the
said dates of hearings fixed in
the said suit itself so that the
date fixed for the main suit
may not be disturbed.
19

20. Question:- whether the Court
of Session, which is specified
as the Special Court under the
protection of Human Rights
Act, 1993 can take cognizance
of the offence as a Court of
original jurisdiction or not?
20

21. Answer:- Above referred issue
is no longer res integra and
stands answered by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of
Bombay High Court in case of
Rasiklal M. Gangani Vs.
Government of Goa, reported
in 2004(2) GOA LR page no.16.
21

22. Since the Human Rights Act
has not specified any special
provision relating to the
cognizance and the trial of the
offence, the provisions of Code
of Criminal Procedure would
govern the trial of cases before
the Human Rights Court.
22

23. As there is no provision in the
Human Rights Act to hold that the
Special Judge designated under
the Human Rights Act, is a Court
of original jurisdiction, the Human
Rights Court can only take
cognizance of the complaints
which are committed to it for trial
by the Magistrate as per Section
209 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
23

24. Reference is required to be made
to the ratios laid down by the
Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High
Court in case of A. Goverdhan
Reddy v. Superintendent of Police,
reported in 1998 Cri LJ 561 and
Rajesh Das Pranabandhu Das, v/s
Tamilnadu State Human Rights
Commission, reported in 2010 (0)
Supreme (Mad) 3735.
24

25. Question:- The subordinate
courts have to face lengthy
arguments in each case
because of the practice of
citing innumerable decisions
on a particular point of law.
What is the way out?
25

26. Answer:- The correct
approach is to
predicate arguments
on the decision which
holds the field.
26

27. Reference is also required to
be made to the ratio laid
down in the case of Rashmi
Metaliks Ltd. V/s Kolkata
Metropolitan Development
Authority, reported in 2013
(10) SCC 95.
27

28. Question:- Whether every
persons who has to file or
defend case shall be
entitled to legal services
under the Legal Services
Authority Act, 1987?
28

29. As per Section 12 of the
Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987, every persons
who has to file or defend
case shall be entitled to
legal services under the
1987 Act, if that person
is:-
29

30. (a) a member of a Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe;
(b) a victim of trafficking
inhuman beings or beggar as
referred to in article 23 of the
Constitution of India;
(c)a woman or a child;
30

31. (d) a person with disability as defined
in clause (i) of section 2 of the persons
with disabilities (Equal opportunities
Protection of Rights and full
participation) Act, 1995.
(e) a person under circumstances of
undeserved want such as being a
victim of a mass disaster, ethnic
violence, caste atrocity, flood, drought
earthquake or industrial disaster; or
31

32. (f)an industrial workman; or
(g) in custody, including custody in a
protective home within the meaning of
clause (g) of section 2 of the Immoral
traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 or in a
juvenile home within the meaning of
clause (j) of section 2 of the Juvenile
Justice Act, 1986 or in a psychiatric
hospital or psychiatric nursing home
within the meaning of clause (g) of
section 2 of the Mental Health Act,
1987; or 32

33. (h) in receipt of annual income
less than rupees nine thousand or
such other higher amount as may
be prescribed by the State
Government, if the case is before
a court other than the Supreme
Court and less than rupees twelve
thousand or such other higher
amount as may be prescribed by
the Central Government, if the
case is before the Supreme Court.33

34. Entitlement for 13. (1) Persons
who satisfy all or any of the
criteria legal services specified
in section 12 shall be entitled
to receive legal services
provided that the concerned
Authority is satisfied that such
person has a prima facie case
to prosecute or to defend.
34

35. (2) An affidavit made by a
person as to his income
may be regarded as
sufficient for making him
eligible to the entitlement of
legal services under this Act
unless the concerned
Authority has reason to
disbelieve such affidavit. 35

36. Thank You
36