Repeated defaults and frivolous adjournments in civil proceedings warrant dismissal of applications, establishing accountability and discouraging prolongation of trials.

ORDER (ORAL)

1. The petitioner/defendant has assailed order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned trial court, whereby in the suit for recovery of loan amount, application of the petitioner/defendant under Order XIII Rule 17 CPC (treated by the court as under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC) was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff, appearing on advance intimation accepts notice and strongly opposes the application.

3. At request of both sides, I have heard final arguments at this stage itself.

4. Broadly speaking, the petitioner/defendant moved the above mentioned application seeking an opportunity to recall plaintiff/PW1 for cross-examination. In the application itself, the petitioner/defendant laid grounds dealing with his failure to appear on multiple dates. After examining the entire record, learned trial court dismissed the application by way of order impugned in this petition.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner/defendant submits that on the night intervening 17.11.2024 and 18.11.2024 he suffered an accident, so sought adjournment on 20.11.2024, which was allowed by the trial court. Thereafter, on 21.02.2025 lawyers were on strike, so he did not appear and matter was adjourned to 15.05.2025. It is submitted by learned counsel that on 15.05.2025 he had requested a proxy counsel to seek pass over, but the same was not allowed by the trial court and cross-examination of PW1 was closed, posting the matter to 12.08.2025. According to learned counsel for petitioner/defendant, on 12.08.2025 he got late in reaching the court, so right to lead defendant’s evidence also was closed. It is thereafter, that the petitioner/defendant filed the application, which was heard on 03.09.2025 and dismissed by way of the impugned order dated 08.09.2025. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner/defendant that he has good case on merits, so another opportunity be granted.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff strongly objects to any further opportunity, disclosing that even prior to 20.11.2024, the petitioner/defendant took a number of adjournments on frivolous grounds. Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submits that the petitioner/defendant took as many as 11 adjournments, with the sole aim to delay the suit proceedings.

7. Perusal of record reflects that on 20.11.2024, the learned trial court allowed adjournment request of proxy counsel for petitioner/defendant on the ground that he had met with an accident few days back.

8. On the next date, 21.02.2025, none appeared for the petitioner/defendant. The explanation advanced on behalf of petitioner/ defendant for default in appearing on 21.02.2025 is that lawyers were on strike. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court as well as all High Courts across the country that strike by lawyers is not a justified ground for defaults. The courts are never on strike.

9. On 21.02.2025, the matter got adjourned to 15.05.2025, but that day also none appeared for the petitioner/defendant. Claim of learned counsel for petitioner/defendant that on 15.05.2025, a proxy counsel appeared on his behalf and sought passover which was denied, is contrary to record. As per order dated 15.05.2025, none appeared on behalf of present petitioner/defendant on that day. The judicial record is sacrosanct. If proceedings are not correctly recorded in the ordersheet, the party concerned must immediately move the same court for rectification, failing which the party concerned cannot be allowed later to challenge correctness of the contents of ordersheet. Admittedly, the petitioner/defendant never approached the trial