We will delve into the recent case of Supreme Court where they discussed the misuse of power of adjournments. The case title is Ishwari Mali Rathod v. Gopal and Ors.

The misuse of Adjournment as per facts

The case at hand is a typical example of the court’s adjournments being abused. The present SLPs are filed in response to the impugned order dated 17.02.2021 issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in M.P. No. 107 of 2021 and M.P. No. 108 of 2021, by which the High Court dismissed the miscellaneous petition filed by the Petitioner-original Defendant, confirming the order of the learned Trial Court dated 21.12.2020 closing the right to cross-examine the Plaintiff.

On 14.08.2013, Respondents No. 1 to 4 filed a lawsuit for eviction, rent arrears, and mesne profit against one Ramchandra (now died) and the present Petitioner. The written statement was filed by the petitioner-defendant, and the problems were formulated. Plaintiffs submitted an affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure on May 12, 2014, which the Petitioner objected to, and Plaintiffs filed another affidavit on March 7, 2015. Defendants requested at least 10 adjournments from 12.05.2015 to 02.12.2019, all of which were granted by the court.

Finally, as a last resort, the adjournment was granted with an expense. Despite this, the Petitioner-Defendant did not call the Plaintiff’s witness for cross-examination. On 14.10.2019, they were allowed time for cross-examination at a fee of Rs. 5,000/-, with the proviso, that if they failed to cross-examine, their right to cross-examine would be considered closed.

Despite this, the Petitioner-Defendant did not cross-examine the Plaintiff’s witness, and therefore their right was considered closed on November 5, 2019. The Petitioner filed a miscellaneous petition No. 6283 of 2019 with the High Court, in which the Petitioner Defendant’s privilege to cross-examine the Plaintiff’s witness was terminated. Despite the fact that no mercy was necessary, the High Court granted the motion by giving the defendants one final chance to cross-examine the witness.

Even after this, the Petitioner-Defendant did not cross-examine the Plaintiff’s witness after that. On the 21st of December 2020, the case was set for cross-examination of Plaintiff’s witness. On the 21st of December 2020, the Petitioner-attorney Defendant’s submitted another plea for postponement. Given the previous number of adjournments granted and the opportunity given to the Petitioner-Defendant to cross-examine the Plaintiff’s witness, and the Defendant’s failure to cross-examine the Plaintiff’s witness, the learned Trial Court closed the right to cross-examine the Plaintiff’s witness by order dated 21.12.2020. By the challenged decision and order, the High Court has affirmed the order of the learned Trial Court.

Issue of adjournment

Whether repeated adjournments and failure to avail opportunities granted rightly closed rights of Petitioner to cross-examine?

Precedents related to adjournments

In the case of Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd.[1], it is observed and held in paragraphs 14 to 17 as under:

 “… Is the court obliged to give adjournment after adjournment merely because the stakes are high in the dispute? Should the court be a silent spectator and leave control of the case to a party to the case who has decided not to take the case forward?”

The court observed that the adjournments cause a lot of unnecessary delays but still the court has to follow it because the litigant would try and indulge in protracting the litigation. The appellate and revisional courts’ misdirected compassion and indulgence exacerbates the problem. The situation at hand is an illustration of misplaced sympathy.

It is past time for courts to become aware of delays in the justice delivery system and recognise that adjournments detract from the efficacy of the judicial process, and that if this threat is not appropriately addressed, the litigant public may lose trust in the system sooner rather than later. The courts, particularly trial courts, must guarantee that meaningful progress in the case is made on each day of hearing.

The court stated that no litigant has right to abuse the procedure provided in CPC. Adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system.

A party to a lawsuit is not free to continue with the trial at its leisure and has no right to decide when the evidence will be admitted or when the case will be heard. The parties to a lawsuit, whether the Plaintiff or the Defendant, must work with the court to ensure that the work is completed on the scheduled hearing date. They do so at their own risk if they don’t.

Commenting on the delay in the justice-delivery system, although in respect of the criminal trial, Krishna Iyer, J. in the case of Babu Singh v. State of U.P.,[2] has observed in paragraph 4 as under:

 “Even in the most serious situations, our judicial system suffers from a slow-motion sickness that is fatal to the concept of a “fair trial,” regardless of the final judgement. Speedy justice is a component of social justice since the community as a whole cares about the criminal being treated with dignity and eventually punished within a fair time frame, and the innocent being spared from the anguish of criminal processes..”

The importance of free trial and fair trial is the right of every person, if there is a delay in the society it will affect the society. This is also the reason of pendency of so many cases in the court.

In the case of Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand and Anr.,[3] using very harsh words and condemning the repeated adjournments sought by the lawyers and granted by the courts, this Court has observed in paragraph 1, 12, 13, 27 and 28 as under:

The judiciary is regarded as a sentinel on the qui vive in a democratic body polity governed by a written Constitution and where the Rule of Law is paramount, not only to protect citizens’ fundamental rights but also to ensure that the democratic values enshrined in the Constitution are respected and the people’s faith and hope in the constitutional system are not atrophied.

The sanctity of the Rule of Law does not recognize a master and a slave, nor does it conceive of a ruler and a subject, but rather encapsulates and sings in the glory of the values of liberty, equality, and justice in accordance with the law, requiring the current generation to have the responsibility to sustain them with all fairness for posterity while ostracising all affectations.

Sacrifice on a continuous basis by all members of the collective is a categorical need to protect the sacredness of democracy. Only as a colossal and priceless treasure can the core vision of democracy be preserved, where morality and justice principles are upheld. Constant patience, steady effort, and argus-eyed vigilance are used to keep intellectual anaemia at bay. The quick demarcation of lis pending before courts, among other things, is the cornerstone of justice. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that it is the judicial system’s principal morality and ethical fulcrum.

Its profundity consists in not allowing anything to cripple it or do any deed that would cause it to freeze or become impotent. The delay in resolving a dispute in a court of law dents the normative dispensation of justice, and in the end, the Bench and the Bar lose their reverence, because the sense of divinity and grandeur truly stems from institutional serviceability.

As a result, while administering justice, historical emphasis has been placed on individual institutionalism and communal institutionalism of an adjudicator. Without fear of dispute, it can be said unequivocally that collective collegiality can never be viewed as an alien idea to efficient adjudication. That is the true measure, and it is the hallmark of duty.

Analysis

When the current nature of delay occurs, the philosophy of justice, the role of a lawyer and the court, the obligation of a litigant and all legislative commands, the nobility of the Bench and Bar, the ability and efficiency of all concerned, and ultimately the divinity of law are likely to give way to apathy and indifference, for procrastination on the part of anyone destroys the values of life and creates catastrophic turbulence in the sanctity of law. Adjournments and a lack of due attention in dealing with the subject must not be permitted to paralyse adjudication’s benefits. One cannot be unaffected by the emotional needs of the time. Nobody has the financial means to live in an ivory tower.

Neither a judge nor a lawyer can ignore “the total push and pressure of the cosmos”. It is devastating to expect infinite patience. Change of attitude is the warrant and command of the day. We may recall with profit what Justice Cardozo had said: “It is true, I think, today in every department of the law that the social value of a Rule has become a test of growing power and importance.”[4]

It is important to remember that leisure time must be properly memorialized. It is preferable if it occurs sooner rather than later. It is the responsibility of the current generation to keep up with the times and remind themselves at all times that the Rule of Law is the central issue, and that any delay in defining and resolving cases injects an artificial virus and becomes a vitiating factor. At all costs, the unpleasant qualities of endemic delays must be avoided.

Procrastination is a systemic problem that affects both individuals and institutions. Its corrosive effect and influence are akin to the disordered state of a guy suffering from an incurable and rapidly progressing cancer. Delay either by the functionaries of the court or the members of the Bar significantly exhibits indolence and one can aphoristically say, borrowing a line from Southwell “creeping snails have the weakest force,”.[5]

Nizer Louis, speaking on the role of lawyers a little more than five decades ago, said: “I consider it is a lawyer’s job to bring calm and confidence to a distressed client. Almost everyone who walks into a legal office is dealing with a situation that has touched them emotionally. It’s all a question of degree and the client’s own capacity to bear the strain.”

The fundamental and ingrained confidence in the adjudicatory system is of crucial and vital importance in a democratic setup. The citizenry’s confidence in the system inevitably erodes as time passes. The only thing that keeps the system alive is trust. It continuously delivers oxygen.

Fragmentation of faith has the ability to bring about a catastrophe in which justice may be sacrificed. A litigant expects a temperate Judge’s reasoned decision but does not plan, and properly so, to guillotine much of his or her time on the altar of reasoning. The timely delivery of justice maintains faith and creates long-term stability.

Access to speedy justice is considered a human right that is profoundly entrenched in the core principle of democracy, and it is not just a legal right but also a natural right. This right can only be fully realized if everyone involved in the system makes the necessary commitment. It is not seen as a feature of Utopianism since it risks making the right a mirage and losing its center of purpose. As a result, no one with a role to play in the criminal justice system can even consider taking a casual attitude.

Suggestions by Supreme Court on Adjournments

In the aforesaid decision, this Court also considered the role of the advocate in the justice delivery system and considered the earlier decisions in paragraphs 17 to 22 which read as under[6]:

Nonetheless, we make the profession aware that in the future, if the non-appearance was purely due to a strike call, the advocate would be liable for the party’s consequences. It is unreasonable and inequitable to make the party alone suffer as a result of his advocate’s self-imposed breach of duty. We should further mention that a litigant who suffers solely as a result of his advocate’s failure to attend in court has the option of suing the advocate for damages, which would be unaffected by the path taken in this case.

Even so, in instances like these, when the court imposes costs on the party for his counsel’s failure to attend, we make it clear that the same court has the authority to allow the party to recover the costs from the advocate in question. However, such a directive can only be issued after the advocate has been given an opportunity to speak. If he still has a good reason, the court will very definitely release him from these obligations.

In Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra[7], wherein the Court observed that an advocate stands in loco parentis towards the litigants. The client is required to receive honest treatment from the advocate in times of need.

In Mahabir Prasad Singh,[8] the court has laid down emphasis on the client-counsel relationship, it was stated that a lawyer is under obligation to do nothing that shall detract from the dignity of the court of which he is himself a sworn officer and assistant. He should pay respect to the judge and maintain the decorum of the court. This means that they should not delay the proceedings of the court.

Conclusion/Suggestions for Adjournments

The judiciary and the justice delivery system are now dealing with an urgent problem of delay, which has a negative impact on the litigant’s right to access to justice and a fast trial. Arrears are increasing as a result of the attorneys’ dilatory tactics and continuous requests for adjournments, which are automatically and routinely granted by the courts. It cannot be denied that delays in access to justice and failure to receive timely justice have shattered litigants’ trust and confidence in the justice delivery system.

Adjournments are frequently used to kill justice. The litigants’ backs are broken by repeated adjournments. The courts take pleasure in carrying out their tasks with the goal of restoring the public’s faith in the institution entrusted with the administration of justice. Any endeavour that weakens the institution and undermines the ordinary man’s trust in the judicial system must be discouraged.

As a result, the courts must not issue adjournments on a regular and mechanical basis, and they must not be a party to induce delays in the administration of justice. In order to usher in an efficient justice dispensation system and sustain trust in the Rule of Law, the courts must be diligent and take quick action.

The judgment shows that the court have to face strict displeasure of the Bar in case where they refuse to grant adjournment. However, the court stated that it should not be the concern of the judicial officers, the main concern must be to grant justice and it means timely justice. If the plaintiff is not getting timely justice, the purpose of law and remedy would be defeated.

To read more on similar topics click here.

---

[1] Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd., (2011) 9 SCC 678.

[2] Babu Singh v. State of U.P., (1978) 1 SCC 579.

[3] Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand and Anr., (2013) 5 SCC 202.

[4] Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of Judicial Process (Cosimo Inc., 2009) 73

[5] Robert Southwell, “Loss in Delay”, in William B. Turnbull (Ed.), The Poetical Works of the Rev. Robert Southwell (John Russell Smith, London 1856), p. 60.

[6] Ramon Services (P) Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor, AIR 2001 SC 207; Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation, AIR 1999 SC 287.

[7] Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra (1984) 2 SCC 5565.

[8] Mahabir Prasad Singh, AIR 1999 SC 287.