Title: Discussion regarding Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 1999 (Not concluded).
1434 hours सभापति महोदय : अब आईटम नम्बर १३ – सविल प्रक़िया संहिता (संशोधन) विधेयक, १९९९ लिया जाता है। इसका समय दो घंटे नियत किया गया है।
THE MINISTER OF LAW, JUSTICE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS (SHRI RAM JETHMALANI): Sir, I do not think this will require two hours. It may be finished much before that.
THE MINISTER OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND MINISTER OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (SHRI PRAMOD MAHAJAN): That is the maximum time limit. It cannot go beyond that.
SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: With the cooperation of this House, I think there should be no problem.
“That the Bill further to amend the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, the Limitation Act, 1963 and the
Court Fees Act, 1870, as passed by Rajya Sabha, be
taken into consideration.”
Sir, I might mention and all hon. Members of this House will agree and the entire people of India will agree – except the dishonest litigants who will have a different opinion – that the greatest blot today on the face of our judicial system is the law delays. Everybody has agreed that some drastic steps have to be taken to remove or eliminate the law delays.
A lot of steps are contemplated. The amendment to the Civil Procedure Code is only one of those steps. I do not pretend that this will solve the problem. It is not a complete solution of the problem. But, Sir, it is one good step forward in the direction of the objective which we all hold dear.
I might briefly explain first the sources of wisdom on which this Bill is based. One is that there was a Law Ministers” Conference held in June-July, 1997. This draft paper was considered by them and there was the unanimous support of the Law Ministers” Conference of 1997. Then the Law Commission applied its mind to it and made a comprehensive 129th Report of the Law Commission which suggested some slight amendments and so on. Those were respectfully considered and incorporated. Then we had a Committee of the Parliament on Subordinate Legislation which considered this problem and some of the suggestions they made have also been incorporated.
Then, there was the Justice Mallimath Committee which also had made a very in-depth study of the problems of arrears in courts. The amendments which were suggested by them also find a reflection in this.
So, this is the application of mind of experts which has taken place in the drafting of this Bill. I claim no credit for it. This is one of those Bills which I have inherited. I wish to pay a tribute to the previous Law Minister who brought this Bill before the House but it could not be passed because of the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Now, it has been passed by the Rajya Sabha and it is here for consideration.
We have reduced the timeframe for service of summons and return of the response of the parties. We have insisted on filing of Affidavit so that anybody who makes a false claim or a false defence is liable to prosecution, for perjuries. This will discourage false defences. Then we have provided for quick service and quick written statement and defence being filed.
The most important part of this amendment is that a part of it is really a sequel to the new arbitration law, modernised arbitration law which is in accordance with the international standards of arbitration which was passed by Parliament in 1996 and some consequential provisions have to be made. We have almost made it now compulsory for the courts before trying a suit, to refer it out for conciliation, mediation and arbitration. This is the
latest philosophy of settlement of disputes or the alternative dispute-settlement mechanism. We have incorporated it in the Civil Procedure Code.
Then, there is a facility for recording evidence. We have borrowed this from the English and American practices. The courts have really no time these days particularly in view of the number of courts which we require. The Law Commission has said that we have to increase the number of Judges by five times. For every one Judge today, there have to be five Judges which means four more Judges have to be appointed. Allowing most of the evidence to be produced in the form of Affidavit first of all and then the other side can always cross-examine that shortens delays and if there is to be recording of evidence, it can take place before the Commissioners rather than the court. So, this is really increasing the number of courts without technically increasing them and that also will be a very, very serious step.
A complaint was made the other day in this House that people obtain injunctions or interim orders from the court ex parte and then try to delay the proceedings so that the courts have no time to consider these things and injustice is perpetrated and sometimes serious damage is caused. We have provided that he who asks for interim relief will give security for compensating the other side if his application turns out to be frivolous or he does not wish to prosecute it.
Then we have disposed of one tier of appeal. In the High Court if an appeal is decided by a single Judge of the Court, then appeal will directly lie to the Supreme Court.
We are abolishing the intermediate appeal in the High Court, to two judges of the Court. The High Courts, by their rule-making power, can insist that writ matters can come before a Division Bench so that the first decision itself is by two judges, by which way the appeal will go to the Supreme Court.
Sir, we have provided an incentive to settlement that if you really settle a dispute and do not trouble the court, there will be full refund of the court fees which you have paid so that this is going to be some kind of an incentive to the parties to settle the dispute.
I submit that this is a very non-controversial measure. If any hon. Member has further suggestions to make, they will be respectfully considered. We are prepared to incorporate them in a further amendment to the Civil Procedure Code. But this Bill, as passed by the Rajya Sabha, may now be passed by this House so that it does not have to go back and we waste time. Sir, we have a very little time left. I am most anxious that this law should come into force. Of course, it will come into force in some cases with retrospective effect, but wherever the prospective operation is insisted upon, that is expressly provided.
So, I commend this Bill for consideration and passing.
(ends)
MR. CHAIRMAN : Motion moved:
“That the Bill further to amend the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Limitation Act, 1963 and the Court Fees Act, 1870, as passed by Rajya Sabha, be taken into consideration.”
SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL
(CHANDIGARH): Mr. Chairman Sir, during the last 30 years, there has been an incredible increase in the volume of litigation that the courts of our country have had to deal with. It may be because of the rise in population, the rise in level of awareness among the people about their rights and the increasing complexities and dimensions of the laws that we are enacting over the years and also the complexity and dimensions of the human activity, but the fact remains that all these factors have contributed significantly in flooding the courts with new cases while the old ones continue to be stacked in the shabby shelves which, as we experienced in Chandigarh, are exposed to the risks like that of a fire.
“>Sir, with over two crore of cases pending in all the courts, the justice-delivery system – the hon. Minister would agree with me – itself is under severe strain. Only the other day, he informed us, in reply to a question, that at present, there are 32 lakh cases pending in the various High Courts alone and over 20,000 cases are pending in the Supreme Court itself. Sir, imagine the plight of a litigant who wastes away, who melts away his entire life-span in pursuing a case right from the lower court up to the Supreme Court and then, has to suffer a remand, a situation where the case actually takes over 40 years in culmination. These exasperating delays, coupled with the expense involved, are sheer back-breaking.
“>