We are assured that the Civil Procedure Rules will come into force on 1 April 1999.

Most of the county court rules will then be revoked, including order 17.

Much criticism has been made of rule 11, not least in the Court of Appeal.

No-one could claim that it was the best drafted of the rules, but was it all bad?The rule was introduced in 1991 to give effect to the then quite recent Civil Justice Review, the aims of which included the elimination of unnecessary delay in civil proceedings.

Its fixed timetable and draconian sanction were the alternative to hands-on case management by district judges, which the review found could not be afforded.

It implied the revolutionary assumption that the simpler cases could be set down within six months of becoming defended and more complex ones within 15 months.

It allowed for those which could not fit within those parameters by providing for applications for variation -- submitting the case to court management where automatic management was not appropriate.Rule 11 has been overwhelmingly successful in its aim to accelerate the pace of litigation.

A price has been paid, of course.

Pain was inevitable as solicitors' practices strove (or were forced) to move from a culture of the conduct of litigation at a pace determined by the plaintiff's solicitor, however competent or incompetent.

Some suffered the fate of the draconian strike-out.

A study of the Court of Appeal transcripts will show that the large majority were solicitors who had not applied their minds to the rule (or in some cases even become aware of it) and understood the basic regime which it created.

Some unfortunates were caught by the rule's failure to deal properly with more complex situations (those involving multiple defendants, for example) and their own failure to take the pessimistic view and apply early for directions to be on the safe side.

Nevertheless, the days when a period of two, three or four years from issue to trial were considered the norm are now long gone.Is it not a little early for a retrospective view of a rule that will be with us for some months yet? Not if it serves as an early warning of what is to come.

What will follow are the fast track and multi-track (let us hope they will think up some better names).

At least there will be no automatic strike-out but sanction orders for the dilatory there will be -- including dismissal of actions, with or without an application, where delay persists.

In the fast track (cases for £5,000 to £15,000), the expectation will be a trial fixed for nine months -- not a request to set down made 15 months -- after close of pleadings.

In the multi-track (larger cases) the timetable will be tailored to the case.

In both, parties will be expected to follow the timetable and the court will monitor the key stages.

Order 17, rule 11 may be on its way out (and few will regret its passing) but the pressure to get litigation concluded rapidly and efficiently will be greater, not less, under its replacement.