JUDGMENT
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.
1. The learned single Judge has set aside the judgment of the trial Court solely on the ground that the issues had not been properly framed.
2. We have gone through those issues. Though better language could have been employed to bring into focus the issues that arose in the case, the remand of the case, nearly fifteen years after the disposal by the trial Court, solely for the purpose of re-writing the issues and thereafter, considering the same evidence, in our view, was not the appropriate course to be followed.
3. In the matter of framing issues as also in the matter of writing judgments, a great deal depends upon the literary skills of the Presiding Officer and the fact that many of these Officers do not possess that skill in the requisite degree is a reality which has to be accepted. If, on a fair reading of what has been written, it is possible to ascertain as to what was intended to be conveyed, the appellate Court should be slow in interfering with the final decision on the ground that the issues should have been worded differently.
4. In this case, we are satisfied that there was no prejudice caused to either party. They knew full well what each other’s case was, and had understood the issues to which they were required to direct their attention for the purpose of leading relevant evidence. Such evidence has been placed before the Court and that evidence has been assessed by the trial Court. As to whether the assessment so made is required to be upheld or interfered with, is a matter to be decided after consideration of the merits of the appeal.
5. The judgment under appeal underscores the need for imparting more intensive training to the Judicial Officers to hone up their skills in clearly and accurately expressing themselves while writing their orders and more so, while framing the issues.
6. That however by itself is not a reason to put the parties to needless expense and delay which would be the result if the order of remand is to be upheld, as, such a remand would only lead to an addition of some more years for the final disposal of the litigation as after the trial Court renders it’s decision, an appeal is to be expected which would thereafter have to wait in the long queue for its disposal in this Court. As things are, the minimum time required for disposal of a first appeal in this Court as of now is ten years, more often than not that period stretches to twelve to fifteen years. With nearly ten thousand such appeals pending in this Court, and the Judge strength being wholly inadequate – even if a Division Bench sits exclusively for first appeals it will take over ten years to clear the presently pending appeals. Even more appalling is the scenario regarding second appeals with nearly fifteen thousand such second appeals still awaiting disposal with no prospect of all those appeals being disposed off for the next ten years with the present Judge strength.
7. The confidence of the public, which is the bulwark of the justice delivery system will be seriously eroded if even after the decision by the trial Court litigants have to continue to wait for ten years and more for their appeals to be heard.
8. The only possible solution to this serious problem is to appoint adequate number of ad hoc Judges for the next three to four years, so that additional Benches can be constituted exclusively for clearing the present backlog of appeals.
9. We, therefore, set aside the order under appeal and restore the Appeal Suit to the file of this Court. The Registry shall list that suit before the appropriate Bench within the next three months. The appeal is allowed. CMP. No.18320 of 2000 is closed.
10. A copy of this order shall be sent by the Registrar to the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, for the purpose of considering the appointment of ad hoc Judges.