2020 (11) TMI 969 - HC - Indian Laws

Reference of matter to Mediation Centre - As per the report of Mediation Centre dated 04.12.2019, mediation has failed, after which, matter was listed on 03.09.2020 - Counsel is standing here and requesting for adjournment without the file and is not aware of the earlier orders as well as brief facts of the case - HELD THAT - Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 has pointed out that on earlier occasions also just to linger on the matter, a request has been made on behalf of the applicant to pass over the case - In such a situation, though the case is passed over but the interim order granted earlier on 28.06.2019 stands vacated. List this matter on 25th November, 2020.

Summary

Issues: Adjournment requests causing delay in proceedings, failure of mediation, vacating of interim order, instructions to proceed with the case.

The judgment by the Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J. dealt with a case where the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre on 28.06.2019. However, the mediation failed as per the report dated 04.12.2019. Subsequently, on 03.09.2020, a request for adjournment was made on behalf of the applicant to file a rejoinder affidavit, which was granted for two weeks. Despite a further request for time on 29.09.2020, the applicant's counsel was found unprepared and unaware of the case's details, leading to criticism from the opposite party's counsel for causing delays. Consequently, the interim order granted on 28.06.2019 was vacated due to the repeated adjournment requests. The court directed the concerned lower court to proceed with the case as per the law and listed the matter for 25th November, 2020.

The judgment highlighted the issue of repeated adjournment requests by the applicant's counsel, causing delays in the proceedings. The court noted that such requests were made to linger on the matter, leading to criticism from the opposite party's counsel. The failure of the mediation process further added to the delays in the case, prompting the court to take action to ensure the timely resolution of the matter. The court's decision to vacate the interim order was a consequence of the undue delays caused by the adjournment requests, emphasizing the importance of expeditious legal proceedings to uphold the principles of justice and efficiency in the judicial system.

The judgment also addressed the issue of the counsel's lack of preparation and awareness of the case details during the court proceedings. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the unpreparedness of the applicant's counsel, highlighting the importance of being well-informed and ready to proceed with the case to avoid unnecessary delays and disruptions in the legal process. This aspect of the judgment underscored the professional responsibility of legal representatives to diligently represent their clients and adhere to the court's directives to ensure the smooth functioning of the judicial system.

Furthermore, the judgment emphasized the need for the concerned lower court to proceed with the case in accordance with the law despite the vacating of the interim order. By directing the lower court to continue the proceedings, the judgment aimed to maintain the integrity of the legal process and ensure that the case progressed without further delays. The court's decision to list the matter for a specific date signified its commitment to expeditiously resolving the issues at hand and upholding the principles of justice and efficiency in the judicial system.