The law students doing court observation on the impact of S. 89 CPC have missed the point, because the law practitioners themselves are insensitive and indifferent. Let me make up the deficiency thereby ensuing.

Law and practice may not be consistent. Better say practice may not be consistent with law. Practice is just a rut which is created by usage. Law practitioners detest assuming the role of reformer. Their obvious goal is to do justice with the brief in hand. The practice they follow find orientation from the demand which the brief in hand calls for.

Now coming to S. 89 CPC, it is essential to state the contour which a civil proceeding traverses.

A civil suit commences with the presentation of Plaint ( which contains a suitor's grievances and reliefs sought).

Obviously, a litigant, i.e., Plaintiff,  files his suit upon being forced to the wall. After suit institution, his whole focus lies on either interim relief , but in absence thereof, on a speedy trial. But trial does not start off until the pre- trial hurdles are overcome, including several things like ensuring appearance of the parties sued, called Defendants, after effective service of summons, followed by the completion of the pre- trial stage, in the form of the filing of reply (called written statement) by the Defendants.

The above pre-trial process is quite tiring for the Plaintiff who has been in quest for his remedy by the legal process.

Now comes the next stage, where the pre-trial stage ends and the stage of trial arrives. The first step in that direction is the framing of issues, followed by adducing of evidence whereafter the case would be argued out and judgment would be passed.

The above description of the whole trial process has been given in a sweep, but in reality its pace is slower than the slowest pace one may imagine. Going by the present status, cases filed in the eighties and nineties are still pending. Why, is not that easy to explain in a short note.

Now coming back to the main issue, i.e., S.89 CPC, in reality its stage is no where difined, nor is trial court's hands fettered. It can invoke this provision as and when possibility of conciliation, compromise or mediation occurs in the opinion of the presiding officer.

However, fact remains that this aspect has been grossly overlooked by all concerned, by the litigants, lawyers, judicial officers as well as by high court's inspection cell .

In practice, the above provision is invoked at a very wrong stage, at the very commencement of the pre- trial stage.

The court would not frame issue unless the Plaintiff overcomes the hurdle of S. 89. The term 'hurdle' is that which Plaintiff, in quest for justice woul obviously feel if the suit proceeing gets shunted like a train until the red signal marked by S. 89 CPC is addressed, this way or that. Plaintiff better prefers 'this' and avoid 'that'. 'This' represents Plaintiff's routine petitioning that no settlement could be reached, hence court is requested to proceed. The term 'that' represents an unwise move to let the proceeding remain held up while possibility of settlement is explored, in which court's participationnis not minimal, rather it is wholly absent. 

That explains why the legislative intent stands defeated, about which no one seems concerned, much less responsible.

Now the moot question is, whether the legislative intent behindvS. 89 may be appreciated and made effective?

It is for the students to find out, by collecting legal opinion from the practising professionals whose scant regard for this pragmatic legislation is known too well.

To help the students in their above endeavour, I may post some more materials on the topic. Interested readers may, therefore, follow subsequent posts.