Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT GOA
A.K. Menon, J.
Danu Rayu Fernandes & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Girbani Mazumdar & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 706 of 2022 (F)
Decided On : 31-03-2022
Adjournment - Civil Suit - The court set aside the order rejecting the adjournment application, allowing the petitioner to cross-examine the witness with a condition not to seek any adjournment on the next date.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought an adjournment to cross-examine a witness due to late service of the affidavit, which was rejected by the court based on the age of the matter.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the order rejecting the adjournment application and allowed the petitioner to cross-examine the witness with a condition not to seek any adjournment on the next date.
Issues: Rejection of adjournment application based on the age of the matter and late service of the affidavit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the late service of the affidavit and granted the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine the witness, with a condition not to seek any adjournment on the next date.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order rejecting the adjournment application and allowed the petitioner to cross-examine the witness with a condition not to seek any adjournment on the next date.
JUDGMENT
1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to an order dated 08.03.2022, whereby Exhibit D-109 was rejected. Mr. Joshi waives service on behalf of the contesting respondent nos. 3, 4 and 9 and Ms. Dessai waives service on behalf of respondent no. 5.
2. Considering that a short point is involved and since the contesting respondent nos. 3, 4 and 9 are represented today, this matter is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.
3. The learned Counsel for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 9 and Counsel for respondent no. 5 undertake to ensure that appearance is entered within one week from today. In the meanwhile, Mr. Joshi states that he has instructions to oppose the Application. Since the matter is taken up for final disposal, with the consent of all the parties appearing today, I issue Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal.
4. The order impugned was passed on the Application Exhibit D-109, seeking an adjournment which was rejected. The reason for seeking adjournment as set out in the Application is that the affidavit of evidence on behalf of the contesting respondents was served upon the petitioner on 06.03.2022, a Sunday, late in the evening via e-mail. The civil suit was scheduled to be heard on 08.03.2022. On 08.03.2022, Exhibit D-109 was presented, seeking an adjournment since the Counsel was not prepared to cross-examine the witness, given a short period between the service of the affidavit on the petitioner and the date of cross-examining the witness.
5. The impugned order reads as follows:
''This matter is of the year 2013. The ground stated in the application cannot be justified for adjourning the matter. Hence the above application is dismissed.''
6. The only reason for refusing time was that the matter was of the year 2013. The fact that the affidavit was served late on 08.03.2022, on a Sunday by e-mail has not been appreciated by the Court. In view thereof, one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the witness in question, however, on the condition that the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment on the next date.
7. In view thereof, I pass the following order:
(a) The impugned order dated 08.03.2022 is set aside to the extent it rejects the Application at Exhibit D-109.
(b) The petitioner shall proceed to cross-examine the witness, Ghanashyam Bhomkar on the next date, which the Court may fix.
(c) It is made clear that the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment on the date when the witness is made available to cross-examine.
8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
The court may grant an opportunity for adjournment considering the circumstances, such as late service of documents, with conditions to prevent abuse of the adjournment process.
The court has the discretion to grant adjournments and may set aside orders rejecting adjournment applications if the reasons for refusal are not justified.
A party must demonstrate diligence in presenting evidence, but courts may grant additional opportunities to file evidence in the interest of justice, subject to conditions such as the payment of cost....
The main legal point established is that the Trial Court should consider the reasons for adjournments and afford opportunities to parties to lead evidence, especially when the delay is not attributab....
The court balanced the equities by considering the diligent prosecution of the case and the need for travel, setting aside the order subject to the payment of costs and the respondent making herself ....
Courts should not dismiss applications for evidence solely on the grounds of belatedness, especially when it affects the merits of the case.
The court emphasized that routine adjournments in civil proceedings undermine justice, necessitating strict adherence to statutory limits and the imposition of costs for delays.
The court reaffirmed the principle that parties must diligently prosecute their cases and that undue adjournments harm the justice system.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
