Court Strikes Down Adjournments for Lawyer Convenience, Mandates Timely Trial Disposal

Kerala High Court | Justice A.Badharudeen

The Kerala High Court has come down heavily on the practice of seeking unnecessary adjournments, particularly on grounds of lawyer inconvenience or non-genuine illness, asserting that the court's duty to ensure timely disposal of cases outweighs the convenience of parties or their lawyers. The court, presided over by Justice A.Badharudeen , reviewed the provisions governing adjournments in both civil and criminal procedures, citing extensive Supreme Court jurisprudence to underscore the necessity of expediting trials.

The ruling came in an Original Petition (Crl.) filed by the 3rd accused in an NDPS Act case (S.C. No. 82/2021) before the Special Court in Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner sought a six-month adjournment citing the illness of his counsel, Advocate Celine Wilfred, supported by a medical certificate (Ext. P4).

Case Background

The petitioner is facing charges under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Though earlier bail applications were dismissed, the petitioner was subsequently granted bail by the High Court (Ext.P3). An earlier order (Ext.P2) had directed the trial court to dispose of the case within three months. In compliance, the trial commenced, with the prosecution having examined 18 witnesses and marked numerous exhibits and material objects, with only one prosecution witness remaining. The court's report subsequently revealed that the petitioner's lawyer, Advocate Celine Wilfred, had sadly passed away.

The Core Legal Question

Against this backdrop, the court posed a crucial question: "to what extent an Advocate has right to seek adjournment of trial, according to his/her convenience?"

Legal Framework and Precedents

Justice Badharudeen meticulously examined the legal provisions governing adjournments:

• Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order XVII: Permits adjournments for sufficient cause, but mandates reasons in writing and generally restricts a party to no more than three adjournments during the hearing. Rule 2(c) explicitly states that a lawyer being engaged in another court is not a ground. Rule 2(d) adds that a lawyer's illness or inability is not a ground unless the court is satisfied that the party could not have engaged another lawyer in time.
• Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 309: Requires every inquiry or trial to continue day-to-day until all witnesses are examined, unless the court records reasons for adjournment beyond the following day. It specifies that adjournment shall not be granted at a party's request unless circumstances are beyond their control, and a lawyer's engagement elsewhere is not a valid ground.

The judgment extensively referenced Supreme Court pronouncements:

• Shiv Cotex vs. Tirgun Auto Plast: The Supreme Court lamented that "adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system." While the cap of three adjournments under Order XVII Rule 1 CPC might not be mandatory in justifiable cases (like sudden illness, death, natural calamity), grounds like a lawyer's absence due to other work, strike calls, change of lawyer, or continuous illness (unless alternative arrangements are made) will not justify more than three adjournments.
• Rafiq and Another vs. Munshilal: Held that a party should not suffer for the default, inaction, or misconduct of their advocate. In such cases, costs could be recovered from the defaulting advocate.
• Chaudhary vs. State (Delhi Administration): Emphasized that sessions trials "must proceed de die in diem" (from day to day) continuously from start to finish to ensure expedition and eliminate "manoeuvre and mischief." Trials should not be piecemeal.
• N.G. Dastane vs. Shrikant S. Shivde & R.D. Saxena vs. Balaram Prasad Sharma: Defined "misconduct" under the Advocates Act, 1961. Abusing the process of court, seeking adjournments when witnesses are present causing harassment, and adopting "tactics of filibuster" were deemed professional misconduct. The court noted that advocates have a duty to ensure witnesses present are examined or make alternative arrangements if they have unavoidable inconvenience.
• State of U.P. vs. Shambhu Nath Singh: Deprecated the practice of adjourning cases without examining present witnesses, highlighting the hardship and financial loss caused to witnesses.
• Doongar Singh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan: Reiterate Section 309 CrPC mandate and the need for timely examination of eyewitnesses.
• A Karnataka High Court Division Bench ruling (cited by the Court): Affirmed a party's absolute right to change their advocate, stating there is "nothing known as irrevocable vakalatnama," and courts cannot demand a 'no objection' from the previous lawyer.

Court's Strong Observations on Pendency

Justice Badharudeen highlighted the alarming issue of case pendency, citing statistics for Second Appeals in the High Court (12,536 pending as of Feb 2024). He noted that even with judges working diligently, the current rate of disposal versus filing means it could take decades to clear the backlog without the cooperation of lawyers.

The court expressed frustration, stating that despite judges being prepared and ready to hear cases marked "hearing finally," "last chance," or "for disposal," many lawyers seek adjournments, often using "illness" as their "last weapon." While acknowledging some genuine requests, the court noted the difficulty in identifying them due to repeated, non-genuine requests, leading to "dilemma and dejection" for judges whose preparation is wasted.

Decision in the Present Case

Considering that the petitioner's counsel had genuinely passed away, which is a circumstance beyond the party's control and a valid ground for adjournment under the principles discussed, the court was inclined to grant relief, but within a limited timeframe to ensure the overall mandate of timely trial is met.

The court allowed the petition, directing the Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, to grant the petitioner two weeks from the date of receiving the judgment copy to engage a new lawyer and facilitate the new lawyer's study of the case. The court further directed the trial to resume thereafter on a convenient day and be completed within a period of six weeks .

This judgment serves as a stark reminder to the legal fraternity regarding their duty to cooperate in the efficient administration of justice and the limitations placed on seeking adjournments based on personal convenience.