Report On The Administration Of Civil Justice In The Punjab And Its Dependencies 1880

· 1880 · Public domain (published pre-1930) · archive.org ↗

1( 6 )

2Pond : th 22. The number of cases pending over two months was

3snaing Over two mon. high in Gurd4spur ; the explanation given is “ census work, ”

423. In 15 Districts there ate no aca pending ore 4 sapaaen ef eo ae

5Lahore, Ludhidna an elum make up more than half the total,

6sta a aca contributing 76, 50 and 25, aaa eS Of the Lahore cases, 11

7were kept pending in the Small Cause Court under the provisions of Section 99 A of the

8Code of Civil Procedure ; 49 belonged to the Court of Mehndi Khan, Extra Assistant Commis-

9sioner, whose time was much taken up towards the end of the year in connection with the

10Viceregal Darbar and the preliminary operations of the census.

11Of the 50 cases in Ludhi4na 47 were pending in the Court of the Judicial Assistant.

12This officer went on 3 months’ leave without a successor being Sone and his cases, although

13for the most part of small value or amount, were allowed to liv over instead of being sent to

14other competent Courts for decision. ‘

1524. The oldest pending case was in the Court of the Deputy Commissidher of Kohat, and

16Gries! panaing wks was instituted on 19th December 1878. The Commissioner of Pesh&-

17war remarks about it that “ there seoms to be no immediate prospect

18of its being disposed of, although an award has been pee by arbitrators.” Three cases of

191879 were pending at the close of 1880, one in each of the Districts of Ludhiana, Amritsar

20and Bannu. As regards the two former, satisfactory explanations have been, in each case,

21submitted.

22°95. The avetnge duration of cases contested and uncontested was 30 an 19 days, res-

23A Pine npr eee ss pectively, or one day more in each than in 1879. In contested cases

24and ngontested sane ised the average was highest in Jhang, 49 days;in Rohtak, 45 ;in

25“,, Bannu, 42 ; and in Shahpur, 41 days ; in Hazara the average was 13

26days ; in no othor District did it fall below 20.

27In Jhang it is explained that the trial of land suits was transferred from the

28Settlement tothe District Courts, and the District stiff was weak. This is the same explana-

29tion that was given in 1879, when the average had rison to 39, and it can hardly be said to be

30satisfactory.

31The Deputy Commissioner of Rohtak explains that the average of his District has been

32raised by the long duration of cases in the Court of Mr. King, Assistant Commissioner

33(71 days ); that officer disposed of a great deal of civil work, including 4 large number of cases

34iuvalvipg intricate questions of occupancy rights.

35a The Deputy Commissioner of Shahpur’s explanation is that embodied in para. 21 of

361s report.

3726. The average number of attendances dat Pa of the parties, or either or any of

38Average number of appoar- them, varied from 2 in I3 Districts to 4 in the 3 Districts of

39ances, Ludhidna, Dera Ghizi Khan and Bannu, and stood at 3 for the

40whole Province as in the two previous years.

4127. The Districts in which most plaints were returned were Hoshifrpur 734,

42tee Umballa 488, and Gujranwala 447. The total number exceeds

43Plaints rejected or retyrned. that of 1879 by 1,101,

44€.— MISCELLANEOUS CASES.

4528, Excluding applications for execution of decrees and connected cases, which will

46Miscellancous cases disposed be treated od ined ( Part 1 G ), 57,459 miscellaneous cases

47af, were disposed of, as against 5),505 in 1879.

48The cases most worthy of notice under the present head are applications under Act

49XXVII of 1860, for collection of debts on successions ; under Acts XL of 1858 and IX of 186],

50for custody of persons and estates of minors ; under Sections 7 and 8 of Regulation XVII of

511806, for foreclosuro and redemption of mortgages ; under Section 344 of Act X of 1877, for

52declaration of insolvency ; under Seetion 403, for permission to sue in formd pauperis; and

53under Scction 623, for review of judgment.