‘Archaic law’ delaying civil case resolutions: Delhi court

District judge (commercial) Sanjeev Aggarwal was referring to Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), enacted in 1908, which essentially outlines the methods by which courts enforce judgments in civil suits to ensure the winning party or the decree holder, benefits from the court’s verdict

NEW DELHI

The court said that archaic laws which slowed down the judicial system had escaped the notice of the government. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

A Delhi court on Monday observed that an “archaic law” enacted by the government in the 1900s was delaying resolution of civil matters, while presiding over a case wherein a man sought payment of his money from a firm that duped him through a Ponzi scheme.

District judge (commercial) Sanjeev Aggarwal was referring to Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), enacted in 1908, which essentially outlines the methods by which courts enforce judgments in civil suits to ensure the winning party or the decree holder, benefits from the court’s verdict. The provision covers the procedure for paying money under a decree, delivering property, arresting and detaining the debtor, attaching or selling a property and other ways in which the court executes a civil suit.

While hearing a civil suit filed by a man for the recovery of ₹24 lakh, the court said that while the government has made laws to fast-track commercial disputes through The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, other archaic laws which slowed down the judicial system had escaped the notice of the government.

The laws governing criminal matters saw a transition as the Indian Penal Code was replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in July 2024. However, the Code of Civil Procedure, which governs civil matters, exists in its original form.

The court said, “…somehow it appears it has escaped the notice of legislature that to run such a fast-track legislation, it cannot rely upon archaic Order 21 (which deals with the execution of decrees and orders) of the Code of Civil Procedure and other relevant Sections, which were enacted long ago in the year 1908”.

The court said, “You simply cannot run a bullet train with the bogies of a goods train. It can only be run with a Shinkansen engine (Japanese bullet trains)”.

The court was dealing with a suit filed by one Rishi Pal Sharma against a company, Next Generation Deals India Pvt Ltd, and its managing director, Brijesh Kumar Sharma. The plaintiff claimed to have paid ₹21 lakh to the firm after falling victim to their Ponzi scheme.

The court issued a show-cause notice to Brijesh to explain as to why he should not be detained in a civil prison for not paying the decretal amount due to the decree holder (plaintiff), for which he is personally liable.