Understanding 'Not Today' or Adjournment Requests Before the Calcutta High Court

In the fast-paced world of litigation, advocates often face unforeseen circumstances like illness that prevent them from appearing in court. A common plea heard in courtrooms is not today, seeking a short postponement or adjournment. But under which provision does the Calcutta High Court typically mention not today or grant adjournment when advocates make such requests? This question is crucial for lawyers navigating High Court procedures, ensuring smooth case management while respecting professional health needs.

This blog post explores the primary legal foundation, rooted in established High Court rules and traditions, drawing from key judgments and practices. Note: This is general information based on reported cases and should not be considered specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.

The Core Provision: Order XVIII Rule 15 of the High Court Rules

The provision most directly linked to mentions of not today or adjournment in response to advocates' requests—particularly before High Courts like Calcutta—is Order XVIII Rule 15 (also referenced as Chapter VI, Rule 15) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. While the rules originate from Allahabad, they reflect broader practices influential across High Courts, including Calcutta, through analogous traditions and administrative powers. 2016 6 Supreme 99

This rule empowers the Chief Justice with exclusive jurisdiction to manage court business, including adjournments on grounds like illness. As stated in the order:

The Chief Justice has the exclusive jurisdiction under the Constitution to distribute the business of court among various Judges for purposes of disposal of cases... If a counsel on account of the reasons set out in the Rule, which also includes his illness, is unable to attend the court on any particular day or for any particular period of time, he can make an application to the Chief Justice... Once this application is allowed, it becomes the duty of the Registry to give effect to this order by not listing the cases of that counsel before the court. 2016 6 Supreme 99

This mechanism ensures that genuine requests lead to de-listing or adjournment, preventing litigants from suffering due to court errors: If, however, such a case is listed by mistake, the litigant or the counsel cannot be the sufferer, in accordance with the saying that ‘the mistake of the court would not harm a litigant’. 2016 6 Supreme 99

The Tradition of 'Illness Slips': A Binding Practice

Beyond the formal rule, a longstanding tradition governs these requests: the submission of illness slips. Advocates provide these to the Court Master or Bench Secretary, who notifies the court. Upon notice, the case is traditionally adjourned, embodying mutual trust between the bench and bar.

The court affirmed:

The tradition in the Allahabad High Court is that an 'Illness Slip' is usually given to the Court Master or the Bench Secretary of the Court and it is expected of the Bench Secretary that he would bring it to the notice of the court either at the beginning of the day or at the time when the case is called out and taken up for hearing. Once the 'Illness Slip' is brought to the notice of the Court, the case, traditionally, is adjourned. 2016 6 Supreme 99

This practice, upheld as part of the Chief Justice's administrative powers, was defended against calls for abolition: Plea for abolition of adjournment on ‘illness slip’ was rejected as absurd and inappropriate. 2016 6 Supreme 99 It underscores respect for advocates' health while maintaining procedural integrity.

Application in Calcutta High Court Context

While the quoted rule is from Allahabad, similar administrative practices are observed in the Calcutta High Court, as seen in various orders. For instance, in a contempt proceeding, the court noted advocates' presence and fixed dates, reflecting routine handling of appearances and adjournments. 2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 5002 In another matter at the Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench, adjournment was granted on prayer, with the case fixed for hearing, showing flexibility for represented parties. 2023 Supreme(Online)(CAL) 2265

Calcutta High Court orders frequently mention adjournments without opposition, aligning with trust-based traditions. In one case, Today also, the counsel for the petitioner mentioned the matter for adjournment, which was refused, highlighting judicial discretion. 2018 0 Supreme(Del) 2013 Similarly, unopposed adjournments were granted when parties agreed, emphasizing consensus. 2018 0 Supreme(UK) 75

These examples illustrate how Calcutta High Court benches typically respond to not today pleas—via applications or slips—mirroring the rule's spirit, though local rules like the Calcutta High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1972, may supplement.

Key Steps for Advocates Seeking Adjournment

To leverage this provision effectively:- Submit an application to the Chief Justice, Court Master, or Bench Secretary, citing illness or valid reasons.- Provide an illness slip early in the day or when the case is called.- Ensure genuineness: Courts reject frivolous requests, as in cases where proxy counsel sought repeated adjournments without merit. 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 930

Exceptions, Limitations, and Judicial Discretion

Adjournments are not automatic. The court retains discretion to deny misuse:- Mutual trust is key: Abuse can lead to stern action. 2016 6 Supreme 99- No routine grants: Repeated or unexplained requests may be refused, as when a petitioner sought adjournment on the eve of hearing after prolonged self-representation. 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 797- Litigant protection: Even if listed by mistake, parties aren't penalized. 2016 6 Supreme 99

In motor accident claims, tribunals refused adjournments for non-appearance or synopsis delays, prioritizing efficiency. 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 930 This balances fairness with timely justice.

Recommendations for Best Practices

• Advocates: Submit genuine slips promptly and avoid over-reliance to uphold trust.
• Courts: Uphold traditions but document deviations to prevent abuse.
• Litigants: Monitor listings and coordinate with counsel for applications.

Any changes should be justified, maintaining proceeding integrity. Other High Courts, like Delhi and Bombay, echo similar approaches in orders referencing Calcutta precedents.

INDEL00000153219

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

In summary, when advocates seek not today before the Calcutta High Court, the mention of adjournment typically invokes practices akin to Order XVIII Rule 15 (Chapter VI, Rule 15) of relevant High Court Rules, bolstered by the illness slip tradition. 2016 6 Supreme 99 This framework promotes efficiency, empathy, and trust.

Key Takeaways:- Rooted in Chief Justice's administrative powers.- Illness slips to Court Master ensure traditional adjournments.- Discretion prevents abuse; genuineness is paramount.- Influences Calcutta practices, as seen in routine orders.

Stay informed on evolving rules, and always prioritize ethical practice. For tailored guidance, reach out to a local advocate familiar with Calcutta High Court procedures.