Delhi High Court deprecates culture of routine adjournments

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday took objection to what it termed as "culture of adjournments" and said that frequent request to defer cases were impeding the progress of cases.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observations while hearing an application seeking waiver of ₹20,000 costs imposed on a litigant for seeking adjournments on multiple occasions.

The cost were imposed after the petitioner sought multiple adjournments in a 2021 matter concerning the quashing of a complaint case pending before a Metropolitan Magistrate.

According to Justice Krishna, adjournments were frequently requested at short notice and without sufficient justification in numerous cases. The Court observed that requests for adjournments have grown more frequent over time.

"Unfortunately there is a culture of adjournments that developed over a period of time in courts, whatever may be the matter, adjournment shall be granted at the drop of the hat," said Justice Krishna.

The petitioner’s counsel sought waiver of the cost imposed earlier, submitting that her absence on several dates was due to personal difficulty.

The Court examined the explanation and stated that the record suggested that the counsel’s absence was due to professional commitments in another matter rather than any personal difficulty as claimed.

Justice Krishna noted that the counsel had also submitted that she was a single parent with two children and was facing various responsibilities.

The Court stated that such grounds could not justify repeated adjournments in a case already pending since 2021.

Justice Krishna recorded that the use of adjournments in this manner affected the progress of cases and contributed to delays and pendency. The judge observed that counsel should not attempt to present professional commitments as personal difficulties to explain repeated absences.

Despite these observations, the Court agreed to waive the cost in this instance.

Justice Krishna stated that the practice of seeking adjournments without sufficient cause was not acceptable but noted that the cost would not be enforced in view of the circumstances placed before the court.

"Don’t do it ever again, and have the decency to pay the cost," the judge remarked.