Repeated adjournments crush plaintiffs' backs and destroy justice, according to the Supreme Court.

The bench of MR Shah* and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that courts should be very slow in granting adjournments and should not grant repeated adjournments in a routine manner like in the case where ten adjournments were granted between 2015 and 2019 and even twice as a last opportunity and even the cost was imposed.

The Court was dealing with "a typical case of the court's adjournments being abused."

In the year 2013, a lawsuit for eviction, rent arrears, and mesne profit was filed. Following that, the defendant failed to cross examine the plaintiff's witness, despite the court's numerous requests for and grants of adjournments, twice as a last resort, and even the imposition of costs.

Despite the fact that the defendant was given ample opportunity to cross examine the plaintiff's witness, they never used it and instead continued to delay the proceedings by praying for adjournment after adjournment. Unfortunately, the Trial Court and, later, the High Court continued to grant adjournment after adjournment, contributing to the delay in the suit's disposition. It was also brought to the Court's attention that the main suit has now been dismissed.

The Court was also aware that when trial courts decline to grant needless adjournments, they are sometimes accused of being harsh, and they risk the Bar's dissatisfaction. However, judicial officers need not be concerned if their consciences are clear, and judicial officers must remember their responsibilities to the litigants who are before the courts, who have come for justice, and for whom the courts are designed, and the courts must make every effort to provide timely justice to the litigants.

As a result, it was ordered that the courts not issue adjournments on a regular and mechanical basis, and that they not be a party to causing delays in the administration of justice. In order to usher in an efficient justice dispensation system and retain trust in the rule of law, the courts must be diligent and take prompt action.

11 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All