! Repeated Adjournments Break The Back Of The Litigants; Kill Justice: Supreme Court

Skip to content
SCC Blog
Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News

Search …
FacebookTwitterYouTubeLinkedInInstagramTelegramWhatsApp
NAVIGATION
HomeCase BriefsNo More Tareekh Pe Tareekh! Repeated Adjournments Break The Back Of The Litigants; Kill Justice: Supreme Court
No more Tareekh pe Tareekh! Repeated adjournments break the back of the litigants; kill justice: Supreme Court
“Any effort which weakens the system and shake the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation has to be discouraged.”

Share this:
Click to print (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)More
CASE BRIEFSSUPREME COURT
Published on September 26, 2021By Prachi Bhardwaj
Leave a comment

Supreme Court: In the case where ten times adjournments were given between 2015 to 2019 and even twice the adjournments were granted as a last opportunity and even the cost was imposed, the bench of MR Shah* and AS Bopanna, JJ has held that the courts shall be very slow in granting adjournments and they shall not grant repeated adjournments in routine manner.

“Time has now come to change the work culture and get out of the adjournment culture so that confidence and trust put by the litigants in the Justice delivery system is not shaken and Rule of Law is maintained.”

The Court was dealing with “a classic example of misuse of adjournments granted by the court”.

A suit for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profit was filed in the year 2013. Thereafter, despite the repeated adjournments sought and granted by the court and even twice the adjournments were granted as a last opportunity and even the cost was imposed, the defendant failed to cross examine the plaintiff’s witness.

Although the adequate liberty was given to the defendant to cross examine the plaintiff’s witness, they never availed of the same and went on delaying the proceedings by repeated prayers of adjournment and unfortunately the Trial Court and even subsequently the High Court continued to grant adjournment after adjournment and as such contributed the delay in disposal of the suit which as such was for eviction. It was also brought to the Court’s notice that as such now even the main suit has been disposed of.

The Supreme Court called such approach ‘wholly condemnable’ and said,

“Law and professional ethics do not permit such practice. Repeated adjournments on one or the other pretext and adopting the dilatory tactics is an insult to justice and concept of speedy disposal of cases. Petitioner – defendant acted in a manner to cause colossal insult to justice and to concept of speedy disposal of civil litigation.”

Taking the example of the case at hand, the Court noticed that,

“Many a times the suits are filed for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirements of the landlord. If plaintiff who seeks eviction decree on the ground of personal bonafide requirement is not getting the timely justice and he ultimately gets the decree after 10 to 15 years, at times cause for getting the eviction decree on the ground of personal bonafide requirement may be defeated. The resultant effect would be that such a litigant would lose confidence in the justice delivery system and instead of filing civil suit and following the law he may adopt the other mode which has no backing of law and ultimately it affects the rule of law.”

Noticing that arrears are mounting because of such dilatory tactics and asking repeated adjournments by the advocates and mechanically and in routine manner granted by the courts, the Court said that,

“Many a times, the task of adjournments is used to kill Justice. Repeated adjournments break the back of the litigants. The courts are enjoying upon to perform their duties with the object of strengthening the confidence of common man in the institution entrusted with the administration of the justice. Any effort which weakens the system and shake the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation has to be discouraged.”

The Court was also conscious of the fact that whenever the trial courts refused to grant unnecessary adjournments many a times they are accused of being strict and they may face displeasure of the Bar. However, the judicial officers shall not worry about that if his conscience is clear and the judicial officer has to bear in mind his duties to the litigants who are before the courts and who have come for justice and for whom Courts are meant and all efforts shall be made by the courts to provide timely justice to the litigants.

Therefore, it was directed that the courts shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. The courts have to be diligence and take timely action in order to usher in efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law.

[Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 14117-14118/2021, order dated 20.09.2021]

Counsels: Mr. N.K. Mody, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shishir Kumar Saxena, Adv. Mr. R.N. Pareek, Adv. Mr. Prabhuddha Singh, Adv. Ms. Soumya Chaturvedi, Adv. Ms. Sharmila, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR

*Order by: Justice MR Shah

Share this:
Click to print (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)More
Related
Restitution of conjugal rights| Read how Supreme Court imparted justice to a woman despite rejecting her Transfer Petition
January 30, 2021
In “Case Briefs”
CAT | “Advocates who take shortcuts are bound to be cut short”: CAT, while holding Advocate guilty of contempt; lets him off with severe warning
September 24, 2020
In “Case Briefs”
Activist with “an urge to positively contribute to the society” files plea u/s 482 CrPC seeking expedition of a criminal trial. ‘You have no locus standi’, holds SC
December 17, 2020
In “Case Briefs”
TAGGED WITH: Adjournments, Advocates, dilatory tactics, eviction, Justice , Justice AS Bopanna, Justice MR Shah, Litigants, Supreme Court

Written by Prachi Bhardwaj
Associate Editor, EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Post navigation
PREVIOUS STORY
Padma Vibhushan N.A. Palkhivala Memorial National Moot Court (Virtual) Competition, 2021 [Register by September 30, 2021]
WE RECOMMEND

CASE BRIEFSSUPREME COURT
NOTA| “Idea may look attractive but its application defeats fairness ingrained in indirect election”: SC

CASE BRIEFSCOVID 19HIGH COURTS
Del HC | Non-Provision of Ration | “It is most unacceptable that e-coupons have been distributed in such a large number and yet e-coupon holders are left high and dry”

CASE BRIEFSHIGH COURTS
MP HC | Plea seeking exoneration of liability of insurance company rejected and impugned award enhanced
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Your email address will not be published.

Comment *

Name

Email

Website

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

TRANSLATE

மொழியைத் தேர்வுசெய்
இயக்குவது Google TranslateTranslate
POPULAR ON SCC ONLINE BLOG

CASE BRIEFSSUPREME COURT
Will long possession of a property by a caretaker/servant entitle him to acquire an interest in property? SC decides

CASE BRIEFSHIGH COURTS
What are the essential ingredients that a landlord is required to show for purpose of getting an eviction order for bonafide needs? Del HC elaborates

CASE BRIEFSHIGH COURTS
“Daughters are daughters forever and sons are sons till they are married”: Bom HC orders son to vacate flat of 90 yrs old parents

CASE BRIEFSSUPREME COURT
“There is a disturbing tendency of courts setting aside arbitral awards …”: SC upholds arbitration award of Rs 2728 crore plus interest in favour of Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd.

CYRIL AMARCHAND MANGALDASEXPERTS CORNER
Recent Arbitration Judgments Involving Construction Disputes
MOST COMMENTED

CASES REPORTEDSUPREME COURT CASES
2021 SCC Vol. 5 Part 2

CALL FOR PAPERSLAW SCHOOL NEWS
Call for Blogs | The Language Rights Blog [Submissions on Rolling Basis]

CYRIL AMARCHAND MANGALDASEXPERTS CORNER
Recent Arbitration Judgments Involving Construction Disputes

HIGH COURT ROUND UPLEGAL ROUNDUP
High Courts Monthly Round-Up: August, 2021

CASE BRIEFSTRIBUNALS/COMMISSIONS/REGULATORY BODIES
NCLAT | Personal properties of the Corporate Debtor cannot be realised by sale/transfer in the CIRP-NCLT and NCLAT at odds –Order stands quashed
TAGS
#SCC Aadhaar Allahabad High Court Anticipatory Bail Appeal Appointment Arbitration Bail Bombay High Court Cases Reported CBI Compensation Conviction Coronavirus Corona Virus COVID-19 Cruelty Delhi High Court Divorce Evidence FIR GST High Court IBC Interpretation Investigation Judges Jurisdiction Kerala High Court Law Lockdown Madras High Court Maintenance Murder NHRC Rape Reservation SEBI Section 125 CrPC Section 138 NI Act Section 482 Crpc Sentence Supreme Court Supreme Court Cases Wife
Disclaimer : The content of this Blog are for informational purposes only and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. The views expressed are not the personal views of EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. and do not constitute legal advice. The contents are intended, but not guaranteed, to be correct, complete, or up to date. EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. disclaims all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether arising from negligence, accident or any other cause.

© 2021 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved.

notification icon

You may also like...