The Supreme Court has stressed the need to introduce "case management" techniques to ensure there is "ease of doing business" in terms of delivering justice resulting in cases being decided more efficiently. This is the first time the apex court has used "ease of doing business" in justice delivery system.

A bench of Justices Madan B lokur and Deepak Gupta while dealing with a 31-year old civil suit said, "Ease of business and enforcement of contract are the two new buzzwords and rightly so. For ease of doing business insofar as justice delivery is concerned, it is time to introspect and introduce case management programmes to streamline the system so that suits and appeals can be decided more efficiently. The present appeal exemplifies the need for case management system."

The Court noted a disturbing feature in the case before it. The matter related to a land in the Capital. A man had in 1986 entered into an agreement for purchasing land in Mehrauli village of south Delhi. He paid Rs 30,000 as advance to the owners of the property. There was a dispute regarding obtaining a 'no objection certificate' from the authorities for the sale of land that led to filing of a suit. Initially, the suit was heard by the Delhi High Court but with the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court having expanded, the case record stood transferred to the trial court. Tragically, despite three decades having passed, the petitioner as uncertain about the fate of the land he purchased.

The trial court had held that the purchaser did not have the means to pay the balance consideration and was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract at all times. The man challenged the trial court order before the Delhi High Court which held that the owners of the land were not willing to execute the sale deed and purchaser was entitled for delivery of vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the land. This order was challenged in the apex court by the land owners and the top court allowed the appeal and set aside the HC verdict.

The bench observed, "The period is extremely long and such a lapse of time for the enforcement (or otherwise) of a contract is good reason to rethink the procedures." The bench noted that it is high time that "ease of doing business" and "enforcement of contract" be made applicable to judicial orders.