9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner - defendant never availed of the liberty and the grace shown. In fact it can be said that the petitioner - defendant misused the liberty and the grace shown by the court. It is reported that as such now even the main suit has been disposed of. In view of the circumstances, the present SLPs deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.'
Conclusion - There are no justification for adjourning the matter beyond three times which is the maximum number statutorily provided - the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982.
Appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the dismissal and restore the appeal. 3. In case of Ishwar lal Mali Rathod [Order dated September 20, 2021 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.1411714118 of 2021] condemning the practice of adjournments sought mechanically and allowed by the Courts/Tribunal's Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: "1. Present is the classic example of misuse of the adjournments granted by the court. Present SLPs have been preferred challenging the impugned order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in M.P. No.107 of 2021 and M.P. No.108 of 2021 by which the High Court has dismissed the said misc. petition preferred by the petitioner - original defendant, confirming the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 21.12.2020 closing the right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness. ... 4. As observed hereinabove, present is a classic example of misuse of adjournments granted by the court. It is to be noted that the respondents herein - original plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profit as far as back in the year 2013. That thereafter despite the rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... blic may lose faith in the system sooner than later. The courts, particularly trial courts, must ensure that on every date of hearing, effective progress takes place in the suit. 16. No litigant has a right to abuse the procedure provided in CPC. Adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system. 17.... A party to the suit is not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure and pleasure and has no right to determine when the evidence would be let in by it or the matter should be heard. The parties to a suit-whether the plaintiff or the defendant-must cooperate with the court in ensuring the effective work on the date of hearing for which the matter has been fixed. If they don't, they do so at their own peril." 5.2 Commenting on the delay in the justice delivery system, although in respect of the criminal trial, Krishna Iyer, J. in the case of Babu Singh v. State of U.P. (1978) 1 SCC 579 has observed in paragraph 4 as under: - "4. ... Our justice system, even in grave cases, suffers from slow motion syndrome which is lethal to 'fair trial', whatever the ultimate decision. Speedy justice is a component of social justice since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utionalism of an adjudicator while administering justice. It can be stated without any fear of contradiction that the collective collegiality can never be regarded as an alien concept to speedy dispensation of justice. That is the hallmark of duty, and that is the real measure. 12. The proceedings in the second appeal before the High Court, if we allow ourselves to say so, epitomises the corrosive effect that adjournments can have on a litigation and how a lis can get entangled in the tentacles of an octopus. The philosophy of justice, the role of a lawyer and the court, the obligation of a litigant and all legislative commands, the nobility of the Bench and the Bar, the ability and efficiency of all concerned and ultimately the divinity of law are likely to make way for apathy and indifference when delay of the present nature takes place, for procrastination on the part of anyone destroys the values of life and creates a catastrophic turbulence in the sanctity of law. The virtues of adjudication cannot be allowed to be paralysed by adjournments and non-demonstration of due diligence to deal with the matter. One cannot be oblivious to the feeling necessities of the time. No one c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bring calm and confidence to the distressed client. Almost everyone who comes to a law office is emotionally affected by a problem. It is only a matter of degree and of the client's inner resources to withstand the pressure." [ Nizer Louis, My Life in Court (Doubleday & Co. Inc., New York 1961), p. 213] A few lines from the illustrious Justice Frankfurter is fruitful to recapitulate: "I think a person who throughout his life is nothing but a practising lawyer fulfils a very great and essential function in the life of society. Think of the responsibilities on the one hand, and the satisfaction on the other, to be a lawyer in the true sense." [ Felix Frankfurter, "Proceedings in Honor of Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Distinguished Allumni, Occasional Pamphlet No.3" (Harvard Law School, Cambridge, 1960), pp. 45] 28. In a democratic setup, intrinsic and embedded faith in the adjudicatory system is of seminal and pivotal concern. Delay gradually declines the citizenry faith in the system. It is the faith and faith alone that keeps the system alive. It provides oxygen constantly. Fragmentation of faith has the effect potentiality to bring in a state of cataclysm where justice ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a liability." Be it noted, though the said passage was stated in the context of strike by the lawyers, yet it has its accent on nonappearance by a counsel in the court. 18. In this context, we may refer to the pronouncement in Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra [(1984) 2 SCC 556 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 335] , wherein the Court observed that : (SCC p. 563, para 9) "9. ... An advocate stands in a loco parentis towards the litigants and it therefore follows that the client is entitled to receive disinterested, sincere and honest treatment especially where the client approaches the advocate for succour in times of need." 19. In Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1984) 1 SCC 722 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 163 : AIR 1984 SC 618] , a threeJudge Bench, while dealing with the role of an advocate in a criminal trial, has observed as follows : (SCC pp. 72324, para 3) "3. We are unable to appreciate the difficulty said to be experienced by the petitioner. It is stated that his advocate is finding it difficult to attend the court from day to day. It is the duty of every advocate, who accepts the brief in a criminal case to attend the trial from day to day. We ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pertaining to the relationship between the Bench and the Bar, opined thus : (SCC p. 170, para 9) "9. ... the Bar and the Bench are an integral part of the same mechanism which administers justice to the people. Many members of the Bench are drawn from the Bar and their past association is a source of inspiration and pride to them. It ought to be a matter of equal pride to the Bar. It is unquestionably true that courtesy breeds courtesy and just as charity has to begin at home, courtesy must begin with the Judge. A discourteous Judge is like an illtuned instrument in the setting of a courtroom. But members of the Bar will do well to remember that such flagrant violations of professional ethics and cultured conduct will only result in the ultimate destruction of a system without which no democracy can survive." 5.5 Today the judiciary and the justice delivery system is facing acute problem of delay which ultimately affects the right of the litigant to access to justice and the speedy trial. Arrears are mounting because of such delay and dilatory tactics and asking repeated adjournments by the advocates and mechanically and in routine manner granted by the courts. It cannot be di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the litigants in the Justice delivery system is not shaken and Rule of Law is maintained. 5.6 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and 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. In fact it can be said that the petitioner - defendant misused the liberty and the grace shown by the court. It is reported that as such now even the main suit has been disposed of. In view of the circumstances, the present SLPs deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed." 4. In view of the above, we do not find any justification for adjourning the matter beyond three times which is the maximum number statutorily provided. 5. The Appeal is dismissed for non prosecution in terms of Rule 20 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
