Senior citizens - Speedy Trail of case whether it be civil or criminal = It is the duty of the Courts to see that the senior citizens shall be given priority for early disposal of their cases whether those are civil or criminal or service or any type of litigation to enable them to enjoy the fruits of litigation during their life time. The Courts have to remember that the right to speedy trial of cases before the Courts is recognized to be a part of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India

Senior citizens - Speedy Trail of case whether it be civil or criminal =  It is the duty of the Courts to see that the senior citizens shall be given priority for early disposal of their cases whether those are civil or criminal or service or any type of litigation to enable them to enjoy the fruits of litigation during their life time. The Courts have to remember that the right to speedy trial of cases before the Courts is recognized to be a part of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

AP HIGH COURT

 1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1217 of 2020

Pelluri. Venkata Hanumantha Krishna Murthy Sharma

Versus

Pelluri. Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Rao,

O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, seeking intervention of this Court for not

disposing the I.A.No.565 of 2011 in O.S.No.30 of 2002 on the

file of the II Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada.

2) The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the

respondents herein are the defendants in O.S.No.30 of 2002.

3) Considering the nature of the order going to be passed,

notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

4) The petitioners filed O.S.No.30 of 2002 seeking decree in

favour of them and against the defendant Nos.4 and 9 for the

following reliefs:-

 (a) That the sale deed, dated 18.03.2002 executed by 4th

defendant in favour of 9th defendant in relation to the schedule

property does not bind the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 7

after the life time of the 4th defendant as she is entitled to collect

rents from it and live and for consequential relief of permanent

injunction restraining the defendants 4 and 9 for disturbing the

status quo by inducting the 9th defendant into the schedule 

 2

house as purchase of the same under the above sale deed, dated

18.03.2002;

 (b) for partition of the plaint schedule house by passing a

preliminary decree into six equal shares and allot two such

shares to the plaintiffs;

 (c) for past profits from the 9th defendant since 04.06.2003

in a sum of Rs.2000/- per month x 14 = Rs.28,000/- and from

the 8th defendant at Rs.900/- per month x 14 = Rs.12,600/-;

 (d) for a direction for ascertainment of mesne profit on

those portions from the date of suit till date of realization from

the defendants 8 to 9 respectively.

5) The Court below decreed the suit in favour of the

petitioners by its decree and judgment, dated 16.08.2010.

Against the same, 9th respondent herein filed an appeal in

A.S.No.893 of 2020 before this High Court which is pending for

adjudication. As there is no stay of the operation of the

judgment, dated 16.08.2010 of the Court below in appeal, the

petitioners filed I.A.No.565 of 2011 before the II Additional

District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada with a prayer to appoint

an Advocate Commissioner for ascertaining of past mesne

profits as mentioned in the preliminary decree, dated

16.08.2010.

6) Heard Sri S. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for

the petitioners. Perused the record. 

 3

7) Learned counsel submits that since 2011 the said

I.A.No.565 of 2011 was kept pending and getting adjourned and

the respondents taking advantage of the delay, enjoying the

property since 2002. Whereas the petitioners, who are aged 80

years and 72 years respectively, who are putting indifferent

health now, are suffering a lot because of the delay of 9 years in

disposing I.A.No.565 of 2011 with a fond hope that they will

enjoy the fruits of the decree during their life time, they

approached this Court by filing this Civil Revision Petition. The

learned counsel further submits that as the petitioners are

senior citizens, speedy disposal of the I.A.No.565 of 2011 is

necessary. He also submits that if this Court orders for speedy

disposal, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents.

8) As seen from the record, admittedly, the suit in O.S.No.30

of 2002 filed by the petitioners was decreed by the Court below

by its decree and judgment, dated 16.08.2010. Aggrieved by the

same, the 9th respondent preferred an appeal before this Court

in A.S.No.893 of 2010 and it is pending for adjudication. As

there is no stay of the operation of the decree and judgment of

the Court below in appeal, the petitioners filed I.A.No.565 of

2011 before the Court below and it is pending since 2011.

9) As per the age mentioned in the cause title of this Civil

Revision Petition and as per the submissions made by the 

 4

learned counsel, the age of the 1st petitioner is 80 years and the

age of the 2nd petitioner is 72 years. Admittedly, they are the

senior citizens. They approached this Court with a fond hope

that they will enjoy the fruits of the decree during their life time

with a prayer to direct the II Additional District Judge, Krishna

at Vijayawada to dispose of the I.A.No.565 of 2011 which was

pending since 2011.

10) Without going into the merits of the case, in the

considered opinion of this Court, the request of the petitioners,

who are the senior citizens, has to be considered positively and

their hope towards this institution has to be proved to meet the

ends of justice.

11) The year 1999 was observed as “International Year of

Older Persons”. In view of the “National Policy for Older

Persons” adopted by the Government of India, the High Court of

Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad issued a Circular in

ROC.No.4790/1999/OP Cell-E, dated 02.11.1999 directing all

the Judicial Officers in the State to identify and dispose of

matters in which persons above “65 years” of age are involved,

on priority basis.

12) Subsequently, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh issued

Circulars in (1) ROC.No.3465/E-1/2003, dated 05.12.2003, (2)

ROC.No.1230/OP Cell-E/2005, dated 20.08.2005 and 

 5

ROC.No.3465/E-1/2003, dated 14.12.2011 and further the

High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of

Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh issued a

Circular in ROC.No.5226/OP Cell-E/2014, dated 20.12.2014 in

which specific instructions are issued to give priority to the

cases relating to senior citizens for the expeditious disposal.

13) It appears that in spite of specific instructions issued by

the High Court of Andhra Pradesh time to time, the pendency of

cases relating to senior citizens are not decreasing as the rate of

disposal is less, when compared to the filing of new cases. In

some cases, the concerned Courts are adjourning the cases

years together without disposing of the same. The present case

is one of the best examples. The petitioners filed the suit in the

year, 2002 and it was decreed in the year 2010 and the

petitioners filed an interlocutory application on 07.02.2011 as

per the docket proceedings of I.A.No.565 of 2011. It was

adjourned time to time and pending till date. As such, it is clear

that the said interlocutory application is pending before the

Court below for more than 9 years which is very unreasonable

and contrary to the procedure contemplated under law.

14) It is not sufficient to respect and honour the senior

citizens in the late evening of their life by giving some

concessions in bus, rail and Air fares and giving priority in 

 6

allotting lower births in the trains and comfortable seats in

buses. The real respect and honour to the senior citizens is to

render speedy justice to them for which they would have a

legitimate expectation.

15) It is the duty of the Courts to see that the senior citizens

shall be given priority for early disposal of their cases whether

those are civil or criminal or service or any type of litigation to

enable them to enjoy the fruits of litigation during their life time.

The Courts have to remember that the right to speedy trial of

cases before the Courts is recognized to be a part of

fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India.

16) In view of the fact that the petitioners are aged about 80

years and 72 years respectively and this Court noticed from the

record that some of the respondents are also “senior citizens”

who are at the fag-end of their life, they have to feel happy and

they have to get fruits of the litigation by rendering speedy

justice to them.

17) Before parting with this case, we feel it appropriate to

extract the following observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

Rajindra Singh v. Prem Mai1 at para No.11 as hereunder:

1

 (2007) 11 SCC 37 

 7

“People in India are simply disgusted with this state of

affairs, and are past loosing faith in the judiciary

because of the inordinate delay in disposal of cases.

We request the authorities concerned to do the

needful in the matter urgently to ensure speedy

disposal of cases if the people’s faith in the judiciary

is to remain.”

18) In the above said circumstances, the Civil Revision

Petition is disposed of directing the II Additional District Judge,

Krishna at Vijayawada to dispose of the I.A.No.565 of 2011 in

O.S.No.30 of 2002, as expeditiously as possible, preferably

within two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of

this order in accordance with law and to file compliance report

with the Registrar General of this Court.

19) All contentions of the parties are kept open.

20) There is no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Civil

Revision Petition shall stand closed.

______________________

JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

Dt. 07.12.2020

Note: Issue CC in two days.

 B/o

 PGR

Note: LR copy be marked.