Adjournments and pass over are Court’s discretion, not advocate’s right: Delhi High Court

Adjournments and pass over are courtesies extended by the Court to accommodate the counsel and cannot be used to make the opposite side suffer, the Delhi High Court observed recently [M/s EC Constructions P Ltd Vs Neeraj Zutshi And Anr].

It was dealing with a petition challenging a trial court's decision to close the plaintiff's right to further cross-examine a defence witness in a 2006 suit, since the cost imposed for an earlier adjournments was not paid.

Justice Girish Kathpalia rejected the petitioner counsel's submission that he had only sought a pass over till 2:30 pm and not an adjournment.

It noted that first the adjournment request had been made on the ground of illness of the main counsel but when medical documents were sought, the proxy counsel said the main counsel was unavailable due to some family exigency.

"To say the least, such falsehood coming from a counsel before the trial court as well as this court is deprecated," the bench remarked.

The Court further found that that on almost each date, either adjournment or pass over was sought on behalf of petitioner. It appears that the counsel for petitioner is under a mistaken impression that pass overs are matter of right of the counsel, the bench remarked.

"That is not so. Adjournments and pass over are courtesies extended by the court to accommodate the counsel. But that cannot be allowed to make the opposite side suffer. It is for the counsel to maintain their diary so that the other side may not suffer," the Court emphasized.

Considering that the ₹5,000 cost imposed by trial court for the adjournment had not been paid and neither was any application filed for its waiver, High Court ruled that the trial court was justified in closing further cross examination of the witness.

It added that the counsel for respondents was correct in submitting that the petitioner had been deliberately protracting the suit proceedings pending since 2006.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition with a cost of ₹10,000.

"I do not find any infirmity, much less perversity in the impugned orders, so both the impugned orders are upheld and the present petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by petitioner/plaintiff to respondents through respondent no.1 within two weeks," it ordered.

Advocate Prabhjyot Singh appeared for the petitioner.

Advocates Sahil Gupta and Arjun Aggarwal appeared for the respondents.

[Read judgment]