Supreme Court: Stating that the virus of seeking adjournments needs to be controlled in order to avoid the abuse of the process of law, the bench of Dipak Misra and R. F. Nariman, JJ said that such act causes colossal insult to justice and to the concept of speedy disposal of civil litigation.
In a suit relating to recovery of possession, the examination- in-chief continued for long and the matter was adjourned seven times. The defendant sought adjournment after adjournment for cross-examination on some pretext or the other as if it was his right to seek adjournment on any ground whatsoever and on any circumstance. The Court said that a counsel appearing for a litigant has to have institutional responsibility and the professional ethics decries such practice. It was further reiterated that it is desirable that the recording of evidence should be continuous and followed by arguments and decision thereon within a reasonable time. That apart, the Courts should also constantly endeavour to follow such a time schedule so that the purpose of amendments brought in the Code of Civil Procedure are not defeated.
Quoting the saying of Gita “Awake! Arise! Oh Partha” for guidance of trial courts, the Court said that in the cases where the Judges are little proactive and refuse to accede to the requests of unnecessary adjournments, the litigants deploy all sorts of methods in protracting the litigation and it is not surprising that civil disputes drag on and on. The misplaced sympathy and indulgence by the appellate and revisional courts compound the malady further. The Court, hence, directed the defendant to deposit Rs, 50, 000 to the State Legal Service Authority, Karnataka within 8 weeks of this order and it was further made clear that if the amount is not deposited, the right of defence to examine its witnesses shall stand foreclosed. [Gayathri v. M. Girish, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 744, decided on 27.07.2016]