The Madras High Court on Monday came down heavily upon lower courts for granting adjournments as a matter of course and thereby frustrating provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure which lays down strict time frame for disposing of cases. The court said that non adherence to the time limits could only be an exception and not a rule.
“Exceptions can never be made as a rule. Adjournments can never be pleaded or granted as a rule. It is to be granted only on exceptional circumstances based on some justifiable reasons. The courts are bound to consider the intention of the parties when they seek adjournments from the court concerned,” Justice S.M. Subramaniam said.
The judge directed civil courts across the State as well as those in the Union Territory of Puducherry to strictly adhere to Order XXXIX Rule 3(A) of the CPC which requires civil courts to dispose of applications for injunction within 30 days of filing and in case of inability to do so, the presiding officers should record the reasons in writing.
“Thus the provision is unambiguous. The judicial officer concerned is also bound to dispose of the injunction petition within a period of 30 days from the date on which ex parte injunction was granted... In the absence of a valid reason (for not being able do so), it is to be construed that the injunction granted cannot be continued forever,” he said.
The judgment was passed while disposing of a civil revision petition preferred by a litigant, Samba Vaidyanathan, complaining that the Principal District Munsif in Mayiladuthurai was not disposing of an interlocutory application filed by him in a civil suit and had been granting repeated adjournments without any rhyme or reason.
Disapproving of such a practice, Mr. Justice Subramaniam said, in the recent years, the intention of the litigants was to prolong and protract cases pending in courts “so as to gain some unlawful enrichment.” Adjournments had become a norm either to harass the opposite party or to indulge in forum hunting or achieve other goals.
“Thus, the courts are bound to weigh the facts and circumstances for the purpose of granting adjournments. If the intention of the parties is to prolong and protract the issues, then the court must decline grant of adjournments, more specifically in Interlocutory Applications,” the judge said and ordered circulation of his order to all civil courts.
He also quoted former Supreme Court judge M.Y. Eqbal to have said, in his book titled ‘Adjournments’ that “adjournments are like fire in the present justice delivery system. If we sit with our back towards it, then for sure, in future we shall be sitting on our blisters. As the holy Bible says ‘So not let evil conquer you, but overcome evil with good’.”