It breaks the back of litigants & kills justice: SC urges courts to get out of ‘adjournment culture’

 

 

The Supreme Court has taken strong exception to the adjournment culture prevalent in our country especially in the lower courts and in the judgment titled Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal and Ors., the Court has urged the Courts not to grant repeated adjournments in a routine manner. The Bench of Apex Court comprising of Justice MR Shah and Justice AS Bopanna observed that repeated adjournments break the back of the litigants and consequentially lose confidence in the justice delivery system.

It was also made clear that a judicial officer has to bear in mind his duties to the litigants and shall not worry about ‘displeasure of bar’ for not granting unnecessary adjournments. The Bench also made it clear that,

“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.”

Factual Background

The present SLPs were preferred challenging the impugned order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore by which the High Court dismissed the said misc. petition preferred by the petitioner – original defendant, confirming the order passed by the learned Trial Court closing the right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness.

“As observed hereinabove, the present is a classic example of misuse of adjournments granted by the court. It is to be noted that the respondents herein – original plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction, arrears of rent, and mesne profit as far as back in the year 2013. That 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 and as such contributed the delay in disposal of the suit which as such was for eviction. 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. Such approach is wholly condemnable. 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.”

Reasoning and Decision of the Court

“Today the judiciary and the justice delivery system is facing acute problem of delay which ultimately affects the right of the litigant to access to justice and the speedy trial. Arrears are mounting because of such delay and dilatory tactics and asking for repeated adjournments by the advocates and mechanically and in routine manner granted by the courts. It cannot be disputed that due to delay in access to justice and not getting timely justice it may shake the trust and confidence of the litigants in the justice delivery system.

Many times, the task of adjournments is used to kill Justice. Repeated adjournments break the back of the litigants. The courts are enjoining 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. Therefore 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 in rule of law.

We are also aware 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.

Read also : Eligibility Criteria for Appointment to Public Posts must be Uniform: SC (Read Judgment)

Take an example of the present case. Suit was for eviction. 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. Therefore, the court shall be very slow in granting adjournments and as observed hereinabove 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."

Held

“In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and considering the fact that in the present case ten times adjournments were given between 2015 to 2019 and twice the orders were passed granting time for cross examination as a last chance and that too at one point of time even a cost was also imposed and even thereafter also when lastly the High Court passed an order with extending the time it was specifically mentioned that no further time shall be extended and/or granted still the petitioner-defendant never availed of the liberty and the grace shown. In fact it can be said that the petitioner-defendant misused the liberty and the grace shown by the court. It is reported that as such now even the main suit has been disposed of. In view of the circumstances, the present SLPs deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.”

Case Details

Case Name: Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal and Ors.

Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 14117-14118 of 2021 

Date of Decision: September 20, 2021

Read Order ;

 

SOURCE ; .latestlaws.com/

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure