The Supreme Court recently has passed two judgments regarding expeditious disposal of suits but unfortunately has restricted its observations to suits relating to trade mark, copyright and patents. The first of the decisions was in Shree Vardhman Rice and Gen Mills v. Amar Singh Chawalwala¹. The case relates to a suit filed for violation of trade mark and the defendant against whom the High Court had granted an interim order, had come on appeal to the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition. The Bench of the Supreme Court deciding the case, without going into the merits of the controversy, disposed of the petition by observing as follows:

3. Without going into the merits of the controversy, we are of the opinion that the matters relating to trade marks, copyrights and patents should be finally decided very expeditiously by the trial court instead of merely granting or refusing to grant injunction. Experience shows that in the matters of trade marks, copyrights and patents, litigation is mainly fought between the parties about the temporary injunction and that goes on for years and years and the result is that the suit is hardly decided finally. This is not proper.

4. Proviso (a) to Order 17 Rule 1(2) CPC states that when the hearing of the suit has commenced, it shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the court finds that, for the exceptional reasons to be recorded by it, the adjournment of the hearing beyond the following day is necessary. The court should also observe clauses (b) to (e) of the said proviso.

5. In our opinion, in matters relating to trade marks, copyrights and patents the proviso to Order 17 Rule 1(2) CPC should be strictly complied with by all the courts, and the hearing of the suit in such matters should proceed on day-to-day basis and the final judgment should be given normally within four months from the date of the filing of the suit.

6. On the facts of the present case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. However, we request the High Court that the suit in question should be decided within three months from the date a copy of this order is produced before the trial court.

Following this judgment in Shree Vardhman² the same Bench in Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. TVS Motor Co. Ltd.³ passed a similar order on 16-9-2009 and directed as follows:

11. Hence, without going into the merits of the controversy, we direct the respondent-defendant to file a written statement in the suit, if not already filed, on or before the last date for closing of the Madras High Court for Dussehra holdidays. We would request the learned Single Judge who is trying the suit to commence the hearing of the suit on the reopending of the Madras High Court after Dussehra holidays and the carry it on a day-to day basis. No adjournment whatsoever ordinarily will be granted and the suit shall be finally disposed of on or before 30-11-2009.

The only drawback in the above decisions is the fact that the observations and directions to dispose of the suit within four months have been restricted to cases dealing with intellectual property. The reasoning behind the judgment, namely, that in such disputes the main dispute between the parties is on interim relief, would equally hold good for most commercial disputes. Further, even in other disputes, where interim relief may not be the main bone of contention between the parties, the fact remains that cases are pending for very many years.

There is really no difference in the time taken for civil suits regarding intellectual property cases and other suits. If at all, in other suits where companies/business houses are not involved, and the parties are individuals, they by and large do not have the luxury of time or finances and can therefore ill afford delay in adjudication. In fact most of the civil litigation in this county which has been pending for years are filed by individuals who wait for decades for justice to be rendered. This being the case, and Order 17 CPC being mandatory as it stands for all civil cases, the Supreme Court ought to have directed that all civil suits will be decided without much delay and that Order 17 should be complied with strictly by the trial courts for all civil cases. Giving higher priority for disposing of intellectual property litigation may not be appropriate, more so as this would also be at the cost of other civil cases which are pending.