1. Proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution — Request for adjournment due to counsel's indisposition. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1502
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Varanasi – Appellant
Versus
Rakhi Singh & Ors. – Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9388 of 2022
Decided On : 19-05-2022
Important Points
The Court has the discretion to grant adjournments and direct the Trial Court accordingly, especially in cases of counsel's indisposition.
Subject
Civil Law - Adjournment
Act Referred
Headnote
ADJOURNMENT - Civil Procedure - Article 136 of the Constitution - None
Fact of the Case:
The counsel for the original plaintiffs requested an adjournment due to personal indisposition, which was not objected to by the opposing counsel. The Trial Court was directed to refrain from further proceedings until the matter was taken up the next day.
Finding of the Court:
The Court granted the adjournment and directed the Trial Court to refrain from further proceedings until the next day.
Issues: Adjournment request due to counsel's indisposition
Ratio Decidendi: The Court has the discretion to grant adjournments, especially in cases of counsel's indisposition, and can direct the Trial Court accordingly.
Final Decision: The Trial Court was directed to strictly act in accordance with the arrangement and to refrain from taking up further proceedings until the matter was taken up the next day.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
Mr. Huzefa A. Ahmadi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Advocate, Mr. Nizamuddin Pasha, Advocate, Mr. Ibad Mushtaq, Advocate, Ms. Kanishka Prasad, Advocate, Ms. Akanksha Rai, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate, Gen. Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AAG, Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, AAG, Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Advocate, Ms. Ruchira Goel, Advocate, Ms. Priyanka Swami, Advocate, Mr. Barun Kr Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Mudit Kaul, Advocate, Ms. Pratibha Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Mr. Huzefa A. Ahmadi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Advocate, Mr. Nizamuddin Pasha, Advocate, Mr. Ibad Mushtaq, Advocate, Ms. Kanishka Prasad, Advocate, Ms. Akanksha Rai, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. Ajay Mishra, Advocate, Gen. Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AAG, Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, AAG, Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Advocate, Ms. Ruchira Goel, Advocate, Ms. Priyanka Swami, Advocate, Mr. Barun Kr Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Mudit Kaul, Advocate, Ms. Pratibha Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Table of Contents
2. Request for adjournment — Condition that Trial Court proceedings be stayed until the matter is heard by the higher court. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
3. The court noted the consensus between parties to stay Trial Court proceedings pending the next hearing. (Para 5 )
4. Adjournment granted — Trial Court directed to desist from further proceedings until the next hearing. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Whether a court can stay trial proceedings based on the consensus of parties during an adjournment?
Yes, the court may direct a trial court to desist from further proceedings in a suit if a consensus is arrived at between the parties. (Para 5 )
ORDER
1. The proceedings have been mentioned by Mr Vishnu Shankar Jain, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the original plaintiffs, namely, the first to fifth respondents in the proceedings before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
2. Mr Jain states that the learned counsel who has been briefed to appear in these proceedings is indisposed today and, hence, is unable to remain present. He has requested the Court to take up the matter tomorrow.
3. Mr Huzefa A Ahmadi, learned senior counsel, states that there is no objection to the grant of adjournment on account of the personal indisposition of counsel, however, equally, it is necessary that the Trial Court which is continuing to hear the proceedings today may desist from doing so until this Court takes up the proceedings tomorrow.
4. Responding to the above submission, Mr Jain states that the proceedings before the Trial Court shall not be pressed any further hereafter until the Court takes up the matter tomorrow.
5. We accordingly direct the Trial Court to strictly act in terms of the above arrangement and to desist from taking up further proceedings in the suit in view of the consensus which has been arrived at between the parties.
6. List the proceedings tomorrow at 3 pm before this Bench. The Registry may seek the administrative directions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India so that the Bench may be constituted.
