ORDER :

Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to pass an order directing the Sub-Court, Uthankarai to dispose the I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.267 of 2022 by fixing a time frame.

The grievance of the revision petitioner is that the Interlocutory Application filed along with the suit in I.A.No.1 of 2022 for the grant of Interim Injunction is yet to be disposed of and is being adjourned periodically.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the matter is being adjourned for want of Judge in the particular Court and in this regard, this Court cannot offer any opinion, and on account of a large number of vacancies in the District Judiciary, such problems are crepting and it is to be looked into on the administrative side of the High Court of Madras.

3.As far as the Interlocutory Applications are concerned, once the Trial Court declined to grant such interim order at the time of entertaining the suit, then the High Court cannot again insist the Trial Court to decide the Interlocutory Applications within the time limit or otherwise. The Court concerned, by exercising the power of discretion, has to regulate its own cases on board, including the Interlocutory Applications, and any direction in this regard would result in unnecessary pressure on the District Judiciary which this Court does not prefer to do.

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. Heavy cost is to be awarded to the party seeking adjournment on flimsy grounds or attempting to prolong and protract the case, 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, 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. If any party is 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. In some occasion, if any litigant feels 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 cautiou