Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Manoj Bajpai (Dr.) – Appellant
Versus
Seema Jassal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. exemption application allowed, disposed of. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petition seeks expedited decision on application. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. high court's jurisdiction on adjournments discussed. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court issues no time-bound direction. (Para 7) |
CM APPL. 16578/2022 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 305/2022
3. This petition seeks a direction to the learned Additional District Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi ("the learned ADJ") to decide, expeditiously, the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for decreeing the suit on admissions.
4. It is seen that, out of five occasions on which the matter was listed before the learned ADJ for hearing of arguments on the application, dates were taken by the petitioner on two occasions.
5. It is ordinarily not permissible for a litigant to seek adjournments before the trial court and, thereafter, invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking expediting of the proceedings.
6. Nonetheless, as the prayer in the petition mere
The High Court can direct the trial court to expedite proceedings under specific circumstances, but litigants must not abuse adjournment processes.
Litigants are generally not permitted to seek adjournments before the trial court and then invoke the High Court's jurisdiction for expediting proceedings, but specific considerations may warrant exp....
Timely resolution of procedural matters is essential for the expeditious conduct of trials.
The court emphasized that routine adjournments in civil proceedings undermine justice, necessitating strict adherence to statutory limits and the imposition of costs for delays.
Point of Law : Adjournments should be ordinarily limited to three/four times in the life of the suit as also as per the provisions of Order 17 CPC.
For a decree to be drawn on admissions under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, it is the burden of the plaintiff to show that such admissions are unambiguous and unequivocal.
The Court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of applications under Order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) CPC to prevent prejudicial effects on the petitioner.
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
