The court condemns the misuse of adjournments and emphasizes the importance of timely justice delivery. It calls for a change in work culture to discourage unnecessary adjournments and maintain the rule of law.

ORDER :

(M. R. Shah, J.)

1. Present is the classic example of misuse of the adjournments granted by the court. Present SLPs have been preferred challenging the impugned order dated 17.02.2021 passed 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 has dismissed the said misc. petition preferred by the petitioner – original defendant, confirming the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 21.12.2020 closing the right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness.

2. Respondents No.1 to 4 herein filed suit for eviction, arrears of rents and mesne profit against one Ramchandra (now dead) and the present petitioner on 14.08.2013. Petitioner herein – defendant filed the written statement and issues were framed. On 12.05.2014 plaintiffs filed an affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the CPC which was objected by the petitioner and again the plaintiffs filed an affidavit on 07.03.2015. From 12.05.2015 till 02.12.2019 at least ten times the defendants sought adjournments which were granted by the court. Lastly the adjournment was given with cost as a last opportunity. Despite the same the petitioner – defendant did not cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness. On 14.10.2019 time for cross examination was given with cost of Rs.5,000/and with the condition that in any case they fail to cross examine, their right of cross examination would be treated as closed. Despite the same, the petitioner – defendant did not cross examine the plaintiff’s witness and therefore on 05.11.2019 their right was treated as closed. The petitioner approached the High Court by filing miscellaneous petition No.6283 of 2019 by which the right of the petitioner – defendant to cross examine the plaintiff’s witness was closed. Though no leniency was required to be shown the High Court allowed the said petition by granting last opportunity to the defendants to cross examine the witness. Despite the same the petitioner – defendant did not even thereafter also cross examine the plaintiff’s witness. The suit was fixed for cross examination of plaintiff’s witness on 21.12.2020. On 21.12.2020 again the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner – defendant filed an application seeking adjournment. Considering the fact that earlier number of adjournments were granted and the opportunity was given to the petitioner – defendant to cross examine the plaintiff’s witness and despite the same the defendant fail to cross examine the plaintiff’s witness, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 21.12.2020 closed the right of the cross-examining the plaintiff’s witness. The order passed by the learned Trial Court has been confirmed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner defendant.

4. As observed hereinabove, 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 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