Published Paper Details:

The Indian judiciary's crisis of delay and arrears is closely linked to the design and day to day operation of civil procedure, particularly the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This paper examines how specific procedural stages under the CPC--pleadings, service of summons, adjournments, interlocutory applications, appeals, and execution--systematically hinder the efficient functioning of the civil justice system. It argues that while the CPC aspires to ensure fairness and due process, its complexity, coupled with a permissive "tareekh pe tareekh" culture of repeated adjournments, creates multiple points at which litigants can strategically prolong litigation. The analysis draws on doctrinal materials, empirical studies on judicial delay and court performance, and key judicial pronouncements on speedy justice to show that delay is not merely a product of inadequate infrastructure or judge strength, but also of how civil procedure is framed and implemented. The paper critically evaluates past amendments to the CPC aimed at reducing delay--especially the 1999 and 2002 reforms--and assesses why their impact has been uneven across courts. It further explores how emerging technological initiatives and active case management can complement procedural reform, provided they are integrated into the formal and informal practices of trial courts. Ultimately, the paper contends that a calibrated re engineering of civil procedure--tightening control over adjournments and interlocutory practice, streamlining execution, and embedding robust case management norms--can significantly improve judicial efficiency without sacrificing core due process safeguards. The conclusion proposes a set of procedural and administrative recommendations designed to realign the CPC with constitutional commitments to timely and effective access to justice.