MANU/SC/0450/2005

True Court CopyTM EnglishBLJR

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 496 and 570 of 2002

Decided On: 02.08.2005

Appellants: Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Respondent: Union of India (UOI)

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Y.K. Sabharwal, D.M. Dharmadhikari and Tarun Chatterjee

JUDGMENT

Y.K. Sabharwal, J.

1. The challenge made to the constitutional validity of amendments made to the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') by Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2002 was rejected by this Court {Salem Advocates Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India   MANU/SC/0912/2002 : AIR2003SC189 , but it was noticed in the judgment that modalities have to be formulated for the manner in which section 89 of the Code and, for that matter, the other provisions, which have been introduced by way of amendments, may have to be operated. For this purpose, a Committee headed by a former Judge of this Court and Chairman, Law Commission of India (Justice M. Jagannadha Rao) was constituted so as to ensure that the amendments become effective and result in quicker dispensation of justice. It was further observed that the Committee may consider devising a model case management formula as well as rules and regulations which should be followed while taking recourse to the Alternate Disputes Resolution (ADR) referred to in section 89. It was also observed that the model rules, with or without modification, which are formulated may be adopted by the High Courts concerned for giving effect to section 89(2)(d) of the Code. Further, it was observed that if any difficulties are felt in the working of the amendments, the same can be placed before the Committee which would consider the same and make necessary suggestions in its report. The Committee has filed the report.

2. The report is in three parts. Report 1 contains the consideration of the various grievances relating to amendments to the Code and the recommendations of the Committee. Report 2 contains the consideration of various points raised in connection with draft rules for ADR and mediation as envisaged by section 89 of the Code read with Order X Rule 1A, 1B and 1C. It also contains model Rules. Report 3 contains a conceptual appraisal of case management. It also contains the model rules of case management.

3. First, we will consider Report 1 which deals with the amendments made to the Code.

Report No. 1

Amendment inserting Sub-section (2) to Section 26 and Rule 15(4) to Order VI Rule 15.

4. Prior to insertion of aforesaid