Time' for adjournments running out?

Why do cases drag on for years on end in courts? Blame the huge backlog on the docket explosion and the bane of adjournments. So when a statute like the Consumer Protection Act provides for the resolution of disputes within 3 to 5 months, a single adjournment in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission can be for 6 months to even a year! No wonder fresh complaints that encompass at least five stages, take 5 to 7 years, or more, for a verdict.

At a recent hearing in the Ram Siromani Tripathi Vs State of Uttar Pradesh case,  the Supreme Court dug in its heels and refused an adjournment sought on the ground that one of the advocates was out of station.

As the counsel representing the lawyer submitted that he didn’t know anything about the matter, the case was dismissed for ‘non-prosecution’.

The apex court's stance comes close on the heels of terse observations by the  Madhya Pradesh high court in Nandu alias Gandharva Singh Vs Ratiram Yadav.

“The lawyers must not forget, that by seeking unnecessary adjournments, they are frustrating the legitimate right of one of the litigating party and thus by adopting dilatory tactics, they are creating a situation, where the litigating party may lose its faith in the judiciary. It is the duty of the courts to decide the matters as early as possible, and if the lawyers refuse to co-operate with the courts, then a time has come, where the court would be left with no option but to decide the matters on its own, by going through the record, and this situation would never help the litigating party.”

This was not the first time, the higher judiciary has expressed its displeasure over the adjournment culture. Eight years ago, the Supreme Court in Shiv Cotex Vs Tirgun Auto Plast Pvt. Ltd case had lamented that ‘adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of the justice delivery system’.

The Court also noted that “litigants seek and the courts grant adjournments at the drop of the hat. In the cases where the judges are little pro-active and refuse to accede to the requests of unnecessary adjournments, the litigants deploy all sorts of methods in protracting the litigation. It is not surprising that civil disputes drag on and on. The misplaced sympathy and indulgence by the appellate and revisional courts compound the malady further.”

The court’s angst is not without basis. Repeated adjournments fly in the face of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) which places a cap on adjournments to not more than three during the hearing of a suit. Courts are also empowered to impose costs on the side seeking the adjournment.

This is because the clients may have to pay lawyers per appearance and the side that did not want an adjournment may need to be compensated, even for what in legal parlance, are non-effective appearances.

I know of an instance of a lawyer in Delhi, appearing at a final hearing matter, with an opposite side counsel who travelled from another state, not batting an eyelid before seeking an adjournment because he “left the bundle in the car!” Surprisingly, the court accepted this outrageous excuse and adjourned the case by 6 months.

However, not all adjournments are deliberate or a dilatory tactic. A lawyer may be unwell or saddled with personal commitments, like a sick child or a hospitalised parent. Many courts consider these reasons but to ensure that they are true, doctors’ prescriptions or other relevant material can be submitted to the court.  

Expecting an advocate who merely conveys the reason for an adjournment to have read the brief and be ready to argue the matter is neither fair nor practical. Even designated senior advocates need to be adequately briefed by the engaging counsel.

The CPC, rather unfairly, does not consider an advocate being engaged in another court as a valid ground for an adjournment. Juggling appearances before different courts is a skill and hinges on the number of juniors an advocate has. A lawyer cannot be omnipresent  and may genuinely be on his legs in another court. In such situations, a ‘pass over’ which means the matter will be called at the end of the day's cause list is an option.

The Madhya Pradesh high court also hoped that the Bar Councils would rein in advocates who repeatedly seek adjournments for no valid reasons. Such action can only be for misconduct, in accordance with the statute.

But the term ‘misconduct’ is not defined under Section 35 of the Advocates Act. The Supreme Court, in R.D. Saxena Vs Balram Prasad Sharma noted that  the expression ‘misconduct’, professional or otherwise, is a relative term. The apex court in N.G. Dastane Vs Shrikant Shinde came up with a few examples of misconduct.

“Seeking adjournments for postponing the examination of witnesses who are present in court even without making other arrangements for examining such witnesses is a dereliction of an advocate’s duty to the court as that would cause much harassment and hardship to the witnesses. Such dereliction if repeated would amount to misconduct of the advocate concerned. Tactics of filibuster, if adopted by an advocate, is also a professional misconduct.”

Frankly, adjournments may be a necessary evil in the system. Granting time only in genuine cases, on submission of proof, placing a reasonable cap on adjournments, imposing costs, wherever necessary and giving shorter dates are practical steps that can make the adage ‘justice delayed is justice denied’ meaningful.

(The writer is an advocate at the Madras high court, columnist & author)