Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1063

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, L. S. PIRZADA, JJ.
House Of Dubary & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
The Officer Liquidator Of Hanspa Knit (P) Ltd., & Ors. - Respondent
First Appeal No. 531 of 1986 With Civil Application (For Amendment) No. 1 of 2025 In First Appeal No. 531 of 1986 With Civil Application (For Amendment) No. 2 of 2025 In First Appeal No. 531 of 1986 With First Appeal No. 1093 of 1987
Decided On : 07-04-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr C B Upadhyaya(3508), Mr ND Nanavati(507), Niyant R Bhimani(8000)
For the Respondent: Mr Abhijit P Joshi(1330), Mr Pranav G Desai(290), Mr Sh Sanjanwala(729), Ms PJ Davawala(240)

Appellate courts may exercise discretion to conclude hearings on super-aged disputes and deny further adjournments when sufficient opportunities were provided and exhaustive written submissions are available, ensuring the timely administration of justice in accordance with mandatory case-clearance directives.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Appellate jurisdiction - Expediting disposal of long-pending matters - Policy of reducing judicial arrears - In cases pending for over three decades, the court is obligated to prioritize expeditious disposal - Repeated adjournments cannot be granted when parties have been afforded ample opportunity and have exhaustive written submissions on record - Perpetual delay in old matters undermines the administration of justice and renders it a mockery. (Paras 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 13)

(B) Practice and Procedure - Adjournments - Court's discretion - An appellate court is justified in refusing further adjournments when the record indicates that the matter has been historically heard repeatedly and the parties have had sufficient time to prepare - Once a matter is extensively briefed through written submissions and the court has engaged with the merits, it is within the court's discretion to treat the matter as heard for final adjudication. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 11, 13)

Facts of the case:
The litigation originated decades ago and remained pending before the appellate court for over 35 years. Despite the matter being listed periodically on the final hearing board and the court having heard the parties on numerous occasions over several years, the appellants repeatedly sought adjournments citing lack of readiness or health grounds. The court, guided by directives to clear all matters pending for over 30 years to achieve zero-arrears, denied the request for further time.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the history of the case, substantiated by multiple prior orders, demonstrated that the matter had been heard sufficiently. Given the existence of comprehensive written submissions from both sides, the court concluded that the interests of justice would be better served by finalizing the matter rather than allowing further dilatory tactics.

Issues: The central issues addressed were whether a court is entitled to deny requests for adjournment in a long-pending appeal despite claims of lack of readiness, and whether a matter can be closed for judgment based on extensive prior hearings and existing written briefs.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where litigation has languished for over three decades, the judicial commitment to timely justice outweighs a party's demand for repeated adjournments, especially when the matter has already been extensively argued and thoroughly briefed in writing, enabling the court to proceed to judgment.

Result: Matters treated as heard; listed for further clarification of queries.

Table of Content
1. mandate for speedy disposal of cases pending over 30 years. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. requests for adjournment and submission of written arguments. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 11 , 12)
3. historical judicial review of procedural delays and counsel conduct. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. court determination of matters as heard with procedural finality. (Para 13 , 14)

ORDER :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.C.B. Upadhyaya for the respective appellants/applicants and learned advocate Mr.Abhijit Joshi for the respective respondent.

2. These matters are pending since 1986-87 and no adjournment is required to be granted in view of the following directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which read as under :

“The Committee for Model Case Flow Management Rules for Trial Courts, District Appellate Courts, and High Courts, and to suggest a plan for Reduction of Arrears in the High Courts and District Courts" of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and shown grave concern over the trending increase in pendency of almost all the High Courts in India, especially of those cases which are pending for over two or three decades, and thus has formulated a Model Action Plan for Reduction of Arrears in High Courts to serve as a lighthouse for every High Court in formulating its own Action Plan.

In furtherance thereof, the SCMS and Arrears Committee of this High Court proposed Action Plan for Arrears Reduction in the High Court of Gujarat under the Resolutions dated 03.03.2025 and 04.03.2025 at Point Nos.5 & 8 and in view of Paragraph 3 of the Order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Criminal) No.4 of 2021, which was considered and approved by the Standing Committee on 31.07.2025.

As per the said Action Plan at Point No.2 of PHASE-II:- Implementation Phase July 2025-June 2026, the matters which are more than 30 years old shall be heard and decided and no adjournment shall be allowed. The proposal is to bring more than 30 years old pending cases to 'Zero' by June 2026.”

3. Accordingly, these Appeals are classified as “Most Critically Old (more than 30 years)” and are required to be expedited and disposed of in order to meet the deadline so as to deliver justice. Therefore, these matters were listed at Sr.No.1 on top of the Board in today’s cause-list.

4. Learned advocate Mr.C.B.Upadhyaya appearing for the appellants in First Appeal No.531 of 1986, through his colleague, requested for passover in the mentioning, however, the request was turned down and when the matter was called out, learned advocate Mr.Abhijit Joshi appearing for the appellant in First Appeal No.1093 of 1987 made his submissions by reading the written submissions, which were submitted earlier on behalf of the appellant in the said Appeal as well as on behalf of the respondent, in the First Appeal No.531 of 1986.

5. Thereafter, the colleague of learned advocate Mr.C.B.Upadhyaya appearing for the appellants in the First Appeal No.531 of 1986 read the submissions given by the appellants earlier and thereafter, he has proceeded to read the impugned Judgemnt and Order, which continued upto 01:30 PM when learned advocate Mr.C.B.Upadhyaya again requested for passover, however, the request was turned down and learned advocate Mr.C.B.Upadhyaya continued to read the impugned Judgment and Order till 01:45 PM.

6. At 02:30 PM, learned advocate Mr.C.B.Upadhyaya appearing for the appellants in the First Appeal No.531 of 1986 again prayed for time to adjourn the matters on the ground that these matters were earlier being heard finally for three times and today, these matters have been listed after two and half years and requested that since the matters are pending since 1986, time of one week may be granted in the interest of justice, to get prepared with the matter and argue the same finally, which would not prejudice either of the parties.

7. We have considered the above submissions made by learned advocate Mr.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document