2021 (9) TMI 1301 - SC - Indian Laws

Suit for eviction - right to cross -examine the plaintiff s witness - delay in the justice delivery system - concept to speedy dispensation of justice - HELD THAT - Although the adequate liberty was given to the defendant to cross examine the plaintiff s witness, they never availed of the same and went on delaying the proceedings by repeated prayers of adjournment and unfortunately the Trial Court and even subsequently the High Court continued to grant adjournment after adjournment and as such contributed the delay in disposal of the suit which as such was for eviction. Such approach is wholly condemnable. Law and professional ethics do not permit such practice. Repeated adjournments on one or the other pretext and adopting the dilatory tactics is an insult to justice and concept of speedy disposal of cases. Petitioner defendant acted in a manner to cause colossal insult to justice and to concept of speedy disposal of civil litigation. Grant of repeated adjournments in routine manner and how it affects ultimately the justice delivery system as such came to be considered by this court in catena of decisions and asking/grant of repeated adjournments have been repeatedly condemned by this court. Many a times the suits are filed for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirements of the landlord. If plaintiff who seeks eviction decree on the ground of personal bonafide requirement is not getting the timely justice and he ultimately gets the decree after 10 to 15 years, at times cause for getting the eviction decree on the ground of personal bonafide requirement may be defeated. The resultant effect would be that such a litigant would lose confidence in the justice delivery system and instead of filing civil suit and following the law he may adopt the other mode which has no backing of law and ultimately it affects the rule of law. Therefore, the court shall be very slow in granting adjournments and as observed hereinabove they shall not grant repeated adjournments in routine manner. Time has now come to change the work culture and get out of the adjournment culture so that confidence and trust put by the litigants in the Justice delivery system is not shaken and Rule of Law is maintained. Considering the fact that in the present case ten times adjournments were given between 2015 to 2019 and twice the orders were passed granting time for cross examination as a last chance and that too at one point of time even a cost was also imposed and even thereafter also when lastly the High Court passed an order with extending the time it was specifically mentioned that no further time shall be extended and/or granted still the petitioner defendant never availed of the liberty and the grace shown. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Misuse of adjournments by the petitioner.
2. Closure of the right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness.
3. Impact of repeated adjournments on the justice delivery system.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Misuse of Adjournments by the Petitioner:
The Supreme Court highlighted that the case exemplifies the misuse of adjournments granted by the court. The petitioner repeatedly sought adjournments from 2015 to 2019, despite being given last opportunities and even after costs were imposed. The court emphasized that such behavior is an "insult to justice and the concept of speedy disposal of cases." The court condemned the practice of seeking repeated adjournments on various pretexts, noting that it contributes to delays in the justice delivery system.

2. Closure of the Right to Cross-Examine the Plaintiff’s Witness:
The petitioner’s right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness was closed by the Trial Court on 21.12.2020 due to the failure to utilize multiple opportunities provided. The High Court confirmed this order, and the Supreme Court upheld it, noting that the petitioner had been given ample chances but failed to act accordingly. The court underscored that no further leniency was warranted given the petitioner’s repeated failures to cross-examine the witness despite the court’s accommodations.

3. Impact of Repeated Adjournments on the Justice Delivery System:
The Supreme Court extensively discussed the detrimental impact of repeated adjournments on the justice delivery system. It cited previous judgments to highlight how such practices corrode the efficacy of the judicial process. The court referenced the case of Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd., where it was observed that adjournments have grown like cancer, corroding the entire body of the justice delivery system. The court also cited Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand and Anr., emphasizing the need for timely justice and how delays can lead to a loss of faith in the judicial system. The court stressed that the judiciary must ensure effective progress on every hearing date and avoid granting adjournments in a routine manner.

The judgment concluded by dismissing the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), noting that the petitioner had misused the liberty and grace shown by the court. The court reiterated the need for a change in the work culture to eliminate the adjournment culture and maintain the trust and confidence of litigants in the justice delivery system.