2016 (7) TMI 1606 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking for adjournment of the case - earlier also several adjournments were sought and granted - proceedings in the suit got arrested as if time had been arrested - HELD THAT - In the case at hand, the examination-in-chief continued for long and the matter was adjourned seven times. The Defendant sought adjournment after adjournment for cross-examination on some pretext or the other which are really not entertainable in law. But the trial Court eventually granted permission subject to payment of costs. Regardless of the allowance extended, the Defendant stood embedded on his adamantine platform and prayed for adjournment as if it was his right to seek adjournment on any ground whatsoever and on any circumstance. The non-concern of the Defendant-Petitioner shown towards the proceedings of the Court is absolutely manifest. The disregard shown to the Plaintiff's age is also visible from the marathon of interlocutory applications filed. A counsel appearing for a litigant has to have institutional responsibility. The Code of Civil Procedure so command. In the case at hand, it can indubitably be stated that the Defendant-Petitioner has acted in a manner to cause colossal insult to justice and to the concept of speedy disposal of civil litigation. We are constrained to say the virus of seeking adjournment has to be controlled. The saying of Gita Awake Arise Oh Partha is apt here to be stated for guidance of trial courts. SLP dismissed with costs which is assessed at ₹ 50,000/-.

Issues Involved:
1. Abuse of the process of Court by the Defendant-Petitioner.
2. Repeated adjournments sought by the Defendant.
3. Application of Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. The conduct of the Defendant-Petitioner in delaying the trial.
5. The role of professional ethics and responsibility in litigation.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Abuse of the process of Court by the Defendant-Petitioner:
The Supreme Court highlighted that the Defendant-Petitioner exhibited a "classic case of abuse of process of law." The Defendant's persistent filing of interlocutory applications for adjournments, despite the trial court's indulgence, was seen as a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings. The Court emphasized that such actions are against the "majesty of law" and professional ethics, which decry such practices.

2. Repeated adjournments sought by the Defendant:
The Defendant filed multiple interlocutory applications under Order XVII Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, citing various reasons such as the illness of counsel, unavailability of certified documents, and personal commitments. Despite the trial court's repeated adjournments and imposition of costs, the Defendant continued to seek further delays. The Supreme Court noted that the Defendant's actions caused significant inconvenience to the Plaintiff, a septuagenarian, who had to attend court multiple times.

3. Application of Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The Court referred to the case of K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, where it was held that Order XVIII Rule 17 allows the court to recall any witness at any stage of the suit for clarification purposes. However, this power is discretionary and should be used sparingly. The Court emphasized that this provision is not intended to enable parties to recall witnesses for further examination or to fill omissions in evidence. The Court also cautioned against the misuse of this provision to delay trials.

4. The conduct of the Defendant-Petitioner in delaying the trial:
The Supreme Court observed that the Defendant's conduct demonstrated a "colossal insult to justice" and the concept of speedy disposal of civil litigation. The Defendant's repeated adjournments and non-participation in the trial were seen as tactics to protract the litigation. The Court cited previous judgments emphasizing the need for continuous recording of evidence and timely delivery of justice to maintain faith in the judicial system.

5. The role of professional ethics and responsibility in litigation:
The Court stressed the importance of institutional responsibility for counsel representing litigants. The Code of Civil Procedure mandates that applications for adjournments should not be filed on frivolous grounds. The Court condemned the Defendant's counsel for filing applications in a "brazen and obtrusive manner," which is reprehensible and against professional ethics.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition with costs assessed at ?50,000, to be paid to the State Legal Services Authority, Karnataka. The Court directed that the amount be deposited before the trial court within eight weeks, failing which the Defendant's right to examine its witnesses would be foreclosed. The judgment serves as a stern reminder against the misuse of procedural provisions to delay justice and underscores the need for adherence to professional ethics in litigation.

← Previous Next →