Back
S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Md. Abdul Rahim – Appellant
Versus
Muslem Miah – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for adjournment by respondents. (Para 1) |
| 2. counsel for petitioner presents the case. (Para 2) |
| 3. court grants adjournment for vakalatnama. (Para 3) |
| 4. matter to be listed for hearing on specified date. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. - Mr. Samar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondents urges the Court for an adjournment for filing vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents and written objection against the petition.
2. Heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner.
3. Adjournment, as sought for, is allowed.
4. List the matter on 13.12.2022.
The court may grant adjournments to ensure all parties are adequately represented and have the opportunity to file necessary legal documents.
The court recognized the necessity of adjournment due to the petitioner's death, emphasizing procedural integrity in ongoing legal matters.
Repeated adjournments aimed at delaying proceedings are unacceptable, emphasizing the need for timely resolutions in execution of decree.
A writ petition can be dismissed for non-prosecution if the petitioner fails to represent their case.
Courts may grant adjournments in exceptional circumstances, such as medical reasons, but may also set limits on future adjournments.
The court has the inherent power to ensure compliance with its orders and can grant adjournments in the interest of justice while balancing expediency and the rights of the parties involved.
The court's procedural ruling emphasizes the importance of compliance and adjournments for adequate representations in multiple cases.
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
