ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE JUDICIAL ATTITUDE

ABSTRACT

This article deals with the adjournment proceedings in the judicial system. Whenever there’s a need or when a party requires more time to prepare for the case in order to collect more evidences or witnesses or there’s an absence of legal presentation they ask from the court to postpone the current proceedings to a later date. However, in most of the cases the legal representative continuously ask for this and try to delay their own case for their own benefit. This very well connects with the famous legal maxim i.e. “justice delayed is justice denied”.  As, this only leads to the backlog of cases which only overburdens the court. When we talk about data to find out the pendency of cases in figures, we can look to the data provided by National Judicial Data Grid which provides that a total of 44271753(both civil and criminal) cases are pending and almost 28722517 cases are more than a year old which contributes to 64.88 % of total percent. In this article, we will discuss what is the power and duty of the court, the maximum adjournment which can be given to any party, the costs of adjournment and so on. At a later stage, this article will also discuss how this process has become a challenge in the judicial process.

Keywords : postpone; dismiss; adjournment; procedure

INTRODUCTION

The word ‘adjourn’ means, to put off; defer; recess; postpone. To postpone action of a convened court or legislative body until another time specified, or indefinitely; the latter being usually called to adjourn sine die. To suspend or recess during a meeting, legislature or assembly, which continues in session.”

Therefore it can be said that adjournment simply means, “A putting off or postponing of business or of a session until another time or place. The act of a court, legislative body, public meeting, or officer, by which the session or assembly is dissolved, either temporarily or finally, and the business in hand dismissed from consideration, either definitely or for an interval. If the adjournment is final, it is said to be sine die.”

The Law of Adjournment is dealt under Order XVII of the CPC, 1908, however the Code does not provide for any definition of the term. Court cannot “sue moto adjourn” the case, they do only on the request of either of the parties. Delhi High Court issues a Circular on 05-08-2024 stating that “Parties Must Avoid Unnecessary Adjournments In Bail, Suspension Of Sentence Cases.” The Circular was issued by the Court to enhance the judicial/legal process and for speedy disposal of the cases for moving in the direction of efficient functioning of the judicial system. The circular also stated that “Cooperation of the bar in adhering to these resolutions would be highly appreciated.”

Two of the most frequently asked question regarding adjournment proceedings are : –  

• WHEN ADJOURNMENT MAY BE GRANTED ?

The Court may grant adjournment, or give more time to parties if sufficient cause is shown by them, for instance :

1. Sickness of a party or his witness or his counsel;

2. Non-service of summons;

3. Reasonable time for preparation of the case was not given to them;

4. Withdrawal of appearance by a counsel at the last moment;

5. Inability of the counsel to conduct the case;

6. Inability of the party to engage another advocate for their case, etc.

1. WHEN ADJOURNMENT MAY BE REFUSED ?

Following are some of the reasons on the basis of which the Court can refuse to grant adjournment to the parties :

1. Engagement of the Counsel in another court;

2. If the party is intentionally causing delay;

3. The case has been going on for long time;

4. Non-examination of the witness present in the court;

5. Abuse of process of the Court;

6. If the other side has finished presenting their argument;

7. If it is the first case on the list for the day, and etc.

POWER & DUTY OF THE COURT TOWARDS THIS PROCESS

The Court grants or refuse the adjournment, but they can only do so if requested by the party, the Court cannot suo moto grants adjournment. However, in the case of Haji Abdul Hafiz v. Nasir khan, it was held by the Hon’ble Court that, “in allowing or refusing adjournment, the court has first to ascertain whether the ground on which the adjournment is sought is factually correct and then to decide whether that ground is sufficient to grant adjournment.” The court further held that, “past conduct of a person may well be taken into account as a circumstance in judging whether what he is now saying is true or false, but the fact that a party has applied for adjournment of the hearing of a case in the past and the adjournment was granted on his application, could be no ground for refusing an adjournment if it is again sought on a ground which could reasonably be said to have prevented or disabled that party from producing his evidence or doing something else which is necessary to be done for the hearing of the case on that particular day.”

Hence, as we talk about the duty of the Court, it should be kept in view by the Court while exercising their power to grant or refuse adjournment that the court should not be too technical in the matter of granting an adjournment and it should not refuse to grant it if sufficient cause is shown. On the other hand, it has been held that the court should also not grant an adjournment if sufficient cause is not shown even on condition of payment of costs. Now, “What is a sufficient cause” is a question of fact to be decided in each case depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

MAXIMUM ADJOURNMENTS WHICH CAN BE GRANTED TO THE PARTIES

As per proviso to sub-rule (1) of 1 of Order XVII, a Court can only grant a maximum of THREE adjournments to a party during the suit. However, Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Ass. V. Union of India, held that – in extreme and exceptional circumstances, this strict rule does not apply. The Court also held that by “reading down” discretionary power to grant adjournment, the validity of the provision can be sustained.

COSTS OF ADJOURNMENT 

When a Court grants an adjournment during a lawsuit, it must set a new date for the next hearing and decide who should pay for the costs caused by delay (or extra costs). The Court can order the party asking for adjournment to pay these costs.

Provided that :

1. Once the hearing starts, it should continue every day until all witnesses have been questioned, unless the Court has a good reason to delay further;

2. The Court won’t allow delay just because the party asks for it. [The reasons must be beyond the control of that party.]

3. If the lawyer is busy in another Court, then it’s not good enough reason to delay the proceedings;

4. If a lawyer is sick or unable to continue the case, the Court will allow a delay if the party could not find another advocate in time;

5. If a witness is in court, but the party or their lawyer is not ready, the Court can record the witness’s statement and make decisions about the case without writing.

However, in the case of Junaram Bora v. Saruchaoli Kuchuni, it was held that “Such amount(costs) should be reasonable and fair. The costs should not be imposed upon the party – by way of penalty or punishment.”

HOW ADJOURNMENT PROCESS HAS BECOME AN ISSUE/ CHALLENGE AND HOW IT CAN BE SOLVED 

In today’s time, when we look at the figures of the cases pending we come to a conclusion that the process which was once introduced to the bar and bench for giving an extra time to the case for better knowledge of the matter at hand and so no wrong decision can ne taken in hasty has now somewhere became a mockery made by the advocates and to some extent, judges as well. The Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N case held that the law of adjournment is not followed in accordance with the intent of legislature to lower down the rates of pending cases in the court, Instead, the law of adjournment has become a significant reason behind increasing number of pending cases in the Indian judicial system. As per the study conducted in Delhi High Court to study the reason behind delay in cases, adjournment came out to be a major factor. In 91% of delayed cases, counsel sought time(adjournment) at least once. In 70% of delayed cases, counsel sought time more than thrice; and in 30% of delayed cases, counsel sought time more than six times.

Therefore, to solve this major issue various committees has also been formulated wit time-to-time for e.g., Rankin Committee of 1924, High Courts Arrears Committees of 1949 and 1972, Law Commission Reports of 1958, 1978 and 1979, Estimates and Satish Chandra Committee of 1986 are few of them who have given their recommendation on the issue of pendency of suits and delay in disposing cases and have retreated the fact that the problems needs to be addressed immediately.

However, after that in the 79th Law commission report it was stated that, “Adjournment of cases in the daily list should be an exception, not a rule.” Further to which in the year 1990, the Arrears Committee came out with extremely detailed recommendations emphasizing on the fact that “granting of unnecessary and frequent adjournment only prolongs the length of litigation.” 

Thereafter, in the year 2009 230th Report on Reforms in the judiciary, gave various recommendations and adopted a few from Justice Ganguly’s article, ‘Judicial Reforms’ which was published in the year 2008 in Halsbury’s Law Monthly. The report highlights that in order to tackle various issues there needs to be an effective and complete utilization of court’s working hours. “The judges must be punctual, and lawyers must not be asking for adjournments, unless it is absolutely necessary. Grant of adjournment must be guided strictly by the provisions of Order 17 of the Civil Procedure Code.”