The High Court cannot issue directions for speedy disposal of cases without justification or public interest, and every urgency cannot be considered for issuing such directions.

ORDER :

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed, seeking direction to the IV Additional Family Court, Chennai to dispose the O.P.No.2821 of 2016 within a time stipulated by this Hon-ble Court.

2. The marriage between the revision petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 29.01.2015 as per the Christian Rites and Customs. Due to misunderstanding between the revision petitioner and the respondent, they are living separately. The petitioner-husband filed I.D.O.P.No.2821 of 2016 for dissolution of marriage and the said matter is now subjudiced before the IV Additional Family Court, Chennai.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly contended that the O.P.No.2821 of 2016 was adjourned on several times and not yet disposed of. The IV Additional Family Court, Chennai is going on adjourning the cases and the petitioner having no other remedy, approached this Court by filing the present Civil Revision Petition. It is specifically contended that the cross examination of P.W.1 ought to have considered in the year 2018, but the cross examination of P.W.1 was done only on 25.07.2022, since unnecessary adjournments were granted by the Court concerned.

4. Unnecessary adjournments on flimsy grounds would cause prejudice to the parties to the litigation. Rule is to conduct the case on the date it is posted for hearing. Adjournment is an exception. Thus adjournments are to be granted only on genuine grounds and even in such circumstances, on commencement of trial long adjournments are to be avoided. The reason is to be recorded by the Courts, if it is genuine.

5. Long pendency of litigations causing untold mental agony to the litigants are to be considered by the Courts concerned, while granting adjournments in a routine manner. Any party seeking adjournment on flimsy grounds or attempting to prolong and protract the case, then heavy cost is to be awarded, which is to be paid to the other party, who is ready to conduct the case. If such adjournments are frequently sought for, then exemplary or maximum costs are to be awarded by the Court concerned. The endeavour of the Court is to ensure that the cases are disposed of as expeditiously as possible by avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

6. The High Court cannot issue directions to the District Judiciary for speedy disposal of cases in a routine manner. Frequent directions if issued, the same cannot be a practical solution. The trust on the District Judiciary due to overburdening of litigation on Board is to be taken into consideration by the High Court. The routine directions for speedy disposal, if it is issued, it would further cause unnecessary pressure on the District Judiciary. In many such cases, wherein directions are issued, the District Judiciary has come out with administrative letter, seeking extension of time again and again and thus, the purpose for which such directions were issued by the High Court became defeated.

7. The longevity of the litigations are occurring at the instance of the parties on many occasions. The legal brains are adopting tactical approach to prolong and protract the cases for unjust gains and for Forum Shopping. Any party having an idea to achieve their goal in an indirect or illegal manner, then they are adopting all such tactics for the purpose of prolonging the case, which cannot be tolerated by the Courts. On some occasion, if any litigants feel that a particular Judicial Officer in the District Judiciary is inconvenient to them, they are seeking adjournments after adjournments or filing frivolous interlocutory applications through which they all are causing longevity to the litigation. Ill-motives of such litigants if allowed to succeed, then the same will result in miscarriage of justice and thus the Courts are expected to be cautious, while granting unnecessary adjournments on flimsy grounds. All such attempts should be thwarted by the Courts and the Court cannot aid such ill-motive of the parties. The frivolous and unnecessary