SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
A.M.S.Ramaswamy - Petitioner
Vs.
P.K.Subramanian - Respondent
CRP No. 4291 of 2022
Decided on : 02-01-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.I.Abrar Mohamed Abdullah

Adjournments should be granted only on genuine grounds, and routine directions for speedy disposal of cases cannot be issued by the High Court.

Headnote:

Adjournments - Civil Procedure - No specific act sections referenced

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of contract and sought interim injunctions. They approached the court due to frequent adjournments by the Principal District Court, causing delay in the trial.

Finding of the Court:

The court emphasized that adjournments should be granted only on genuine grounds and unnecessary adjournments causing prejudice to litigants should be avoided. The High Court cannot issue routine directions for speedy disposal of cases to the District Judiciary.

Issues: Delay in trial due to frequent adjournments, seeking directions for speedy disposal of cases

Ratio Decidendi: Adjournments should be granted only on genuine grounds, and the High Court cannot issue routine directions for speedy disposal of cases to the District Judiciary.

Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed as the petitioners did not establish urgency or public interest.

ORDER :

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been instituted to direct the Principal District Court at Tiruppur for early disposal of IA No.1 of 2021 in OS No.298 of 2021.

2. The petitioners had filed a suit for specific performance of contract based on the Sale Agreement dated 02.07.2015 executed between the petitioners and the respondents in OS No.298 of 2021, which is pending on the file of the Principal District Court at Tiruppur. At the time of filing the suit, the first petitioner had filed interim injunction applications for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also restraining the respondents from alienating or encumbering or dealing with the suit property till the disposal of the suit.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the suit has now reached the trial stage and IA Nos.1 and 2 of 2021 are pending and are being adjourned with no reasons from 08.04.2022, 25.04.2022, 15.06.2022, 06.07.2022, 25.07.2022, 10.10.2022 and 24.11.2022 respectively. Now the matter has been adjourned to 05.01.2023. The Principal District Court at Tiruppur is going on adjourning the cases and the petitioners having no other remedy approached this Court by filing the present Civil Revision Petition.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top