Mumbai, June 8 — A Bombay High Court judge has offered rare insight into the mounting pressures faced by the judiciary, attributing the five-month delay in uploading a judgment—pronounced in open court in December 2023—to extended court hours, late-night drafting, and a heavy backlog of pending cases.
In a candid explanation included in the judgment uploaded on May 30, Justice Madhav J Jamdar stated that although the verdict in the matter of Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. vs. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors was pronounced on December 19, 2023, the final written order was delayed due to the volume of work and the demands of post-court proceedings.
“I am conducting the court at least for 2–2½ hours almost every day after regular hours, leaving chambers after 10:30–11:30 pm on almost all working days, and reading case papers at home until 2 am,” the judge wrote, emphasizing a grueling work schedule that includes weekends and holidays.
Case Background
The case, which dates back nearly four decades, involves a dispute over specific performance of a property agreement executed in 1984. While the trial court had ruled in favor of the plaintiff in 1990—ordering the defendant to execute a sale deed and hand over vacant possession—the execution of the decree was resisted by third-party purchasers who had bought the property during the pendency of the suit in 1987.
These third parties challenged the execution proceedings, arguing that they had legally acquired title and were not parties to the original suit, thus the 1990 decree could not be enforced against them.
High Court Verdict
The High Court rejected these objections, invoking the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, which holds that transactions made during the pendency of litigation cannot defeat the rights established by a court decree.
Justice Jamdar noted that the sale deeds were executed after the suit was filed in April 1986 and a lis pendens notice was registered in May 1986, making them subject to the ongoing litigation.
Further, under Order XXI Rule 97–106 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as modified by the Bombay Amendment, the Court held that transferees pendente lite could not obstruct the execution of a valid decree. The judge also dismissed claims that the original 1990 decree was a nullity, affirming its validity and enforceability.
“Once the Executing Court determines that the transfer is pendente lite, all consequences which are contemplated under Section 52 of the TP Act mandatorily follow,” Justice Jamdar stated.
Judicial Workload in Focus
The explanation offered by Justice Jamdar provides a rare behind-the-scenes look at the immense workload shouldered by members of the judiciary. His remarks bring into focus the infrastructure and staffing challenges within India’s judicial system, especially at the High Court level, where pendency often results in long delays in both hearings and judgments.
Legal experts have welcomed the transparency, calling it a “wake-up call” for institutional reforms to ensure timely justice without overburdening judges.