Back
Lawyer's Adjournment Slip-Up Costs Rs 15,000 in
In a sharp reminder of courtroom courtesy, the imposed Rs 15,000 in costs on a lawyer for seeking an adjournment without informing the opposing side's counsel. Justice Anish Dayal delivered the order on , in Om Prakash Malhotra & Anr. v. Sachin Malhotra (C.R.P. 314/2024), underscoring that such oversights waste time and resources.
Roots in a Family Dispute Rejection
The case stems from a family tussle among the Malhotras. Petitioners Om Prakash Malhotra and another challenged a trial court order that dismissed the defendants' application under , aimed at rejecting the plaint. Filed as a civil revision petition under , the matter sought review of that procedural dismissal. Hearing dates had already slipped twice due to prior adjournments, building frustration on both sides.
The Adjournment That Backfired
On January 28, proxy counsel for respondent Sachin Malhotra requested an adjournment, citing the lead counsel's sudden travel out of Delhi for another case in a different state. Petitioners' counsel objected vehemently, highlighting the pattern of delays. Upon the court's probe, it emerged that no prior notice had been given to the petitioners' lawyers that morning. What followed was a textbook lesson in professional etiquette gone awry.
Court's Rebuke: No Room for Surprises
Justice Dayal didn't mince words, viewing the lapse as more than a minor glitch. The bench emphasized procedural fairness in busy courts, where unannounced requests disrupt schedules and impose undue burdens. No precedents were directly invoked, but the ruling reinforces inherent powers under CPC to curb such conduct through costs.
Key Observations
"This manner of not informing the counsel of opposite side is by the Court, since it causes inconvenience to other side's counsel, for no reason whatsoever."
— Justice Anish Dayal , Order dated
"Accordingly, cost of Rs.15,000/- shall be paid by counsel for respondent to counsel for petitioners within a period of two weeks."
— Ibid
These quotes capture the court's zero-tolerance stance, integrating details from the official order and reports on the hearing.
A Clear Directive and Broader Warning
The court mandated payment within two weeks and renotified the case for . Beyond the immediate fine—payable directly from respondent's counsel to petitioners'—the decision signals stricter scrutiny on adjournments. Litigators now face heightened accountability: proxy appearances demand proactive communication to avoid personal financial hits. In an era of piled-up dockets, this could streamline hearings and deter casual delays, benefiting the justice system's efficiency.
