Allahabad High Court explains why citizens are annoyed with civil courts

The Allahabad High Court recently said that there exists “a kind of annoyance and contempt” in the minds of citizens towards civil courts as their process has become lethargic and non-promising for the litigant [Maya Devi v. State of UP and Others].Justice JJ Munir made the remarks while dealing with a writ petition which in effect sought recovery of possession of a part of land purchased by the petitioner through a registered sale deed.The Court expressed anguish that the petitioner instead of filing a civil suit had approached every possible authority from the sub-divisional magistrate to the police and even the Commandant of Provincial Armed Constabulary, where her husband is a Head Constable..Observing that the petition reflects the progressively eroding faith of citizens in the judge of the district exercising civil jurisdiction, the Court said,“There is a determined reluctance, a kind of annoyance and contempt in the minds of citizens towards the jurisdiction of the ordinary Civil Courts and part of it is based on pessimism and cynicism that no relief can be had from the Court of civil jurisdiction.”.While acknowledging this perception regarding civil courts, the Court, however, said it was not open to a citizen to express his indignation of the process of civil law by approaching irrelevant and incompetent fora such as the police, the revenue authorities or even the High Court Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.It is not the business of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain suits for possession, the judge said while explaining that the jurisdiction of civil courts is of widest amplitude. “This Court must remark that though this kind of an attitude of citizens showing indignation to the Civil Court's jurisdiction has no place in the law and cannot be accepted, howsoever strong the sentiment may be, it is equally true that the process of the Civil Court has become lethargic due to some factors that are seminal,” the Court added..The Court then delved into the reasons for such dissatisfaction towards the civil courts and said one of them was the widely prevailing culture of strikes in courts. “The other is the eroding sense of routine and work culture amongst the Members of the Bar in the District Courts, where hours of sitting may be seen to be indifferent and not according to the Court's time prescribed.".Further, the Court flagged the filing of complaints against judges for passing orders.“There is still another factor which cannot be lost sight of. Often Judges in the District Courts, who move to pass decisive orders granting well deserved relief to one party or refusing it, face the peril of complaints made against them on the administrative side of the Court. They also face transfer application on hideous and absurd allegations of bias, without the slightest fear in the minds of those who make them about consequences,” Justice Munir said.The Court thus said that it has become difficult for a judge in the civil court to exercise his jurisdiction freely as he constantly remains conscious of the fact that not only his orders may be overturned by a superior court, but his career may be harmed if he passes orders of effective consequence.“These factors put together have indeed made the Civil Court a place of somewhat non-promising resort for a litigant who requires quick relief against a situation that threatens him in the face,” the Court said in conclusion..Notwithstanding the comments, the Court said that it cannot usurp the jurisdiction of a civil court and thus dismissed the plea as non-maintainable.Advocate Om Shiv and Yogendra Singh Kushwaha represented the petitioner.Additional Chief Standing Counsel Monika Arya represented the State..[Read Judgment]