.{.. E ƶvx +ɪ , <ɨ nx Sxii E n Ec +` J ɨɱ ʴʦxx +nɱi n ɮ ʨi , + xxҪ n <E ʽɤ i l* < E] 32 J ɨɱ ʨi , VV E E * xɪ{ʱE E nɴ E i `E Eɨ E , ɮEɮ E Eڮ * VV E E =xE ɽʱɪi ʴv+ E E , < Vɽ xɪ ʨɱx n i * ɮEɮ E Ex E xɽ, |F EU Mcc * <E Sɱi E {S , Ex ʨɱ-VֱE V {ci M , +ɨ M , =xE xɪ ʨɱx n i , {i xɽ Ex E, Ex ɽi |Sʱi Eɴi `Vʺ] bb <V Vʺ] bx<b' ɱ `E i * nJ Mɪ E 15-15, 20-20 ɹ iE ɨɱ Sɱi i , M nci i , Һ ni i , JS Ei i + M {ɮx Vi * <ʱB 1997 ʴv jɪ E ɨx +, EҶx E ʮ{] +<* ɽ +SU |ɪɺ + E ɽ ƶvx ɪ, <ɺ ɽi i nɴ xɽ E V Ei E ɨɱ Vɱn x{] VɪM + ʨi ɨɱ Vɱn ɨ{i VɪM, ʡ = iɮ ɽ +SU |ɪɺ , MiɪM |ɪɺ , |ɶƺxҪ |ɪɺ , Vɺɺ ɨɱ ɨɪ E M + M E ɽV xɪ ʨɱ*

+ɱ xɪ ɽ V ɽV ʨɱ* = {ɮ V ɮ EV <xx n , =ɨ <E Eʶɶ E M< * M E V ɴɽɮ VxEɮ , Vɤ E< ɨɱ i x] i i Vɺ Jɱɡ {] E x] ɴ Ex i , ɽ {] +ʡ Vi , ɽ {j E< |{i xɽ Ei , ɽ {ɺ + Vi * V x] E E] S{ɮɺ x] nx Vi i ɽ =E M E xɽ n {i, EE E-E Pɮɱ xɽ i i ɽ ]ME Sɱ +i * {]Ҷxɮ E-E x] ɮ ni * < x] nx ɽi ʴɱɨ Vi * Ex < EV x nJ E Eʶɶ < E x] {] E Vɱn ɴ Vɪ + Vɱn =xE +V nɴ + =Vɮnɮ nJɱ E, <ʱB ɽ ɮ +SU |ɪɺ * x <ɨ nJ E xɪ E |F ɨɪ E MM* Ex VV E ɽɱ ɱ Eɨ i ɮEɮ E * EҶx Ei E VV E J <ɺ {S Mx gx SʽB, E nJ E VV E J 5,000 gx SʽB, =xE <ix ɽɱ x SʽB* VMɽ Jɱ E , ɽ i ɮEɮ E Vɨnɮ ?

Exx xx E M? +Mɮ VV E M i ɽ Vɱn-Vɱn ɱ E M* Sɽ |Ҩ E] , < E] xSɱ +nɱi Vɺ]] M

... (ɴvx)

Eʹ j ( xiҶ E֨ɮ) : VV i x l, ɽ `VV' E i ?

Fd.

b. Pִƶ |ɺn ʺƽ : VV E ɽִSx * < Exx V ƶvx x V , E cx ɱ M =E nJM, Ex VV E xɪEi Q * =ɨ V + iE Mcc , { {ɮ ɽɱ ɱ V ɨɱ , + VV { {ɮ ɽɱ , Eұ i i * {ɽ xɨ-Mɮɨ Eұ ɽɱ EB Vi l, Ex + { {ɮ +ɮ.B.B. E Vn M ɽɱ EB V * ɮEɮ E-E Vn ɨɪ i , Vɤ ɽ E ɨɱ {] i * ɮ Ex E Vbʶɪɱ EҶx ɽɱ x SʽB* VV E V cE-cE , =xE { {ɮ ɽɱ Vi * <ɺ E +{I E E xɪ `E ʨɱM* <ʱB VV E xɪEi ɽ , EҶx + =ɨ +ɮIh E ɴɺl x SʽB*

Jx + JxV jɱɪ V j (|. i ɨ): Vɤ J j E {ix J j Ei i VV E ]-] VV E xɽ x Ei*

b. Pִƶ |ɺn ʺƽ : M +ɮIh E Jɱɡ , {Uc Vi ɱ E Jɱɡ * ʽ+ E +ɮIh nx E Jɱɡ * +ɱ i M * ɮ xi ʽ V b]E E Ei l E ʽ+ E +ɮIh ʨɱx SʽB* M =E {Ivɮ * +{I Ei E ɨɱ Vɱn-Vɱn x{], xɪ ɺi + ɽV ʨɱ i M E {ɮxɪ P]M* xɪ ɺi, ֱɦ + ɽV VBM, iɤ M E E`x< nڮ M*

ɽ +{I Ei E .{.. +{ ƶvx B , .+ɮ.{.. + +<.{.. ƶvx B, Vɺɺ nҴx En V ʺʴɱ E il Vnɮ En , =xɨ V j] , nڮ E* <ʱB SɽM E Sɽ nҴx ɨɱ Vnɮ En , nx ɽV xɪ M E ʨɱ*

THE MINISTER OF LAW, JUSTICE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS (SHRI RAM JETHMALANI): Sir, I have heard with great attention all the speeches that have been made by hon. Members. Some hon. Members, very rightly, have left the subject of Civil Procedure behind and made other suggestions which are very valuable. Sir, just to save time today - because I am most anxious that this Bill be passed today before 5.30 p.m. - I can only assure them that every suggestion that has come from them will be considered at the proper time when we are considering legislation on other topics like the Criminal Procedure Code and other things. Some of the suggestions related to criminal law and we are about to amend the Criminal Procedure Code and bring a lot of other changes.

I have never pretended - when I moved this Bill - that this is a final solution of the problem with which we are dealing. This is a hundred year old disease and there are no quick fixes. I do not pretend that the moment you pass this and this becomes law, our problems will be solved and people will get speedy justice. No. All that I claim is a very modest claim that this is a welcome step, this is a necessary step but this is a modest step in the direction in which we wish to go.

If you pass this, there are a lot of other steps which have to be taken and I am conscious of those steps and be sure that one of the major steps that is to be taken is the appointment of more judges.

It is well-known that if a job cannot be accomplished by two persons, then you have to put more men on the job. This will be done. What is troubling us is the fiscal resources which are necessary for paying salaries, for putting inexistence court houses , other infrastructure, bailiffs, process-servers and so on and so forth.

The subordinate judiciary is a matter of concern for the State Governments and the local High Courts. We are impressing upon the State Governments that they have to carry out the proposals which have been made by various expert committees.

Sir, one or two objections were raised, and I wish to deal with them in two minutes. One of my friends objected that we are abolishing the right of appeal. We are not abolishing the right of appeal. What we are abolishing is the right of second appeal in petty cases. We are only taking away one intermediate appeal. The second appeal, Sir, even otherwise, lies on point of law only, and it does not lie on issues of fact. There has been a provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, from time immemorial, that if Rs. 3,000 or less is the value, then there shall be no second appeal. Now, bearing in mind the value of money today, we are increasing that amount of Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 25,000. Now, Sir, in matters of this kind, there is always some arbitrariness, some unreasonableness, some intelligent guess-work. If you put it at Rs. 25,000, then somebody will say, "Why not Rs. 24,000 or Rs. 26,000?" You cannot logically justify these things. You will have to leave these matters to the experts. Each provision, each clause in this Amendment Bill is the handiwork of expert committees -- not one, not two, but sometimes, three and four. Let us leave this matter to the experts and, to some extent, I also claim to be an expert, and I heartily recommend this Bill to be passed. If you pass it, I think, Sir, we will have gone a long way in solving the kind of problems we have.

Be sure that we have the interests of the poor man in mind. Somebody said, "How can you ask for security?" The court has been given the power because the court can, sometimes smell that `this man is coming with a frivolous case; I am making an interim order because I have not got the other side before me. I will, at least, take security from him. If it turns out that he has come to court with a false case, then I will ask him to first give security.' But Sir, security is not compulsory. When the Judge sees a poor man, he may not ask for security. There is no question of any deposit because the words used are "take security or otherwise". Therefore, there is a judicial discretion, but we have given the power to ask for security.

I am very grateful to my friend, Shri Bansal, for the speech which he made on that day, and in which he made elaborate suggestions. One of the things which you objected to is about clause 31. Now, that clause 31 was removed in the Rajya Sabha. Unfortunately, you had the wrong text. That does not exist any longer. So, be sure that that provision has gone. It is because of the renumbering that you still see clause 31. But Rajya Sabha had already removed it. So, your wisdom was anticipated by the Rajya Sabha, and we have already removed it.

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL (CHANDIGARH): Was it under rules 17 and 18?

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: We said, "Within seven days, one should file a suit". You have very rightly objected to it. The Rajya Sabha saw to it and we removed that clause, but because of renumbering, clause 31 still exists now in the new. It is old clause 32 which has now become clause 31. So, what you are objecting to has gone. Be sure about it.

Sir, I do not wish to make a long speech. My Prime Minister himself is extremely exercised about it. The other day, in addressing a meeting of very distinguished lawyers and distinguished Judges of the Supreme Court, my Prime Minister made the very same point which was made by one of the Members here. I am aware that many a time delays are caused by the Government itself. There is an urgent need to curb that strong appetite in departments and the lawyers representing them for casual litigation and for wasting Government money. So, we are aware that we ourselves are the cause of our delays in our courts. Fifty to sixty per cent of the litigation is caused by the unreasonableness of bureaucrats. We are trying to remove it. We will see to it that that prolific cause of delay is removed.

Sir, to save time, please spare me from a long speech today. I assure you that, within a year, you will find the legal system in a much better shape than you find it today.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The question is:

"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."

The motion was adopted.

--------

MR. CHAIRMAN : Now, the House will take up clause-by-clause consideration.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The question is:

"That clauses 2 to 15 stand part of the Bill."

The motion was adopted.

Clauses 2 to 15 were added to the Bil.

-------

Clause 16

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal, are you moving your amendment?

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL (CHANDIGARH): Sir, I beg to move:

Page 5,-

for line 36,

substitue "(iii) for rule 18, the following rule shall be substituted, namely:-

`If a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend accordingly within seven days from the date of the order, he shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such seven days'."

THE MINISTER OF LAW, JUSTICE AND COMPANY AFFAIRS (SHRI RAM JETHMALANI): Sir, I would appeal to my learned friend not to press his amendment because he is moving an amendment to a clause which does not exist.

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL : No, this is a different thing. The present amendment relates to order VI rules 17 and 18. That is regarding the amendment of pleadings.

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: Rule 18 is consequential on rule 17. When rule 17 itslef is being repealed then ... (Interruptions) I understand that you want rule 17 to be repealed ... (Interruptions)

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL : No, let me make my point clear. Maybe, I agree with you finally then. Perhaps, my amendment has not been understood correctly.

Sir, first the hon. Minister wants to delete both rules 17 and 18 of order VI which deal with the amendment of pleading. My amendment is to the effect that rule 17 should remain and there should be a little modification in the existing rule 18. So, technically there is nothing wrong with my amendment as such. But if the hon. Minister wants to assure us that that aspect will be taken care of, then I I have no problem.

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: Sir, I wish to assure the House and the hon. Member that all the Expert Committees have reported that these rules 17 and 18 are redundant. The power now is lodged in section 153 of the Civil Procedure Code and section 148 is the general provision which gives one the time for extension.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Bansal, are you moving your amendment?

SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL : Sir, this is an important thing. Let the hon. Minister clarify the point.

Sir, now that he has assured us about it , in view of that I do not press my amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it the pleasure of the House that the amendment moved by Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal be withdrawn?

The amendment was, by leave, withdrawn.

Now, the question is:

"That clause 16 stand part of the Bill".

The motion was adopted.

Clause 16 was added to the Bill.

Clauses 17 to 34 were added to the Bill.

MR> CHAIRMAN : The question is :

"That clause 1, and Enacting formula

and Title stand part of the Bill

The motion was adopted.

Clause 1, the Enacting Formula and the Title were added to the Bill.

---

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, the Minister may move that the Bill be passed.

SHRI RAM JETHMALANI: Sir, I beg to move:

"That the Bill be passed."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is:

"That the Bill be passed."

The motion was adopted.

----


[NEXT PAGE]