Justice Endlaw on adjournments and delayed justice

“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.”.Reiterating the Supreme Court’s judgment’s last year, a single bench of the Delhi High Court has highlighted the devastating effects of constant adjournments in the justice delivery system. These observations were made by Rajiv Sahai Endlaw J. while deciding a civil suit involving Samsung Electronics and others as plaintiffs..The facts of the matter, or rather the list of dates, show how the matter has been dragged on for close to eight years. After an interim order was granted in 2006, issues were framed in November of 2008. However, no affidavit was filed till February 2011, and no witnesses appeared for cross examination till September 2016. During last week’s hearing, the witness was finally present in court..Observed the court,.“The Court, as would be obvious from above, has already given enough indulgence to the plaintiffs. The counsel for the plaintiffs forgets that in the present days of Right to Information Act, the happenings, proceedings and the pendency of cases in the Court are there for all to demand and see. .The issue of long delays in disposal of cases is today in public eye and is eroding the faith in the legal system of the country and which erosion can lead to disastrous consequences.”.This is not the first time such an observation has been made by the courts. In fact, Parliament introduced an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code in 2002 to place a cap on the number of adjournments. The proviso to Rule 1 of Order XVII in the CPC states that no adjournment can be granted more than three times to a party during the hearing of a suit..In the Salem Advocate Bar Association the Supreme Court held that this proviso did not include circumstances beyond the control of the parties such as sudden hospitalisation or natural disasters. However, in the instant case, no such grounds were made out by the plaintiffs..According to Justice Endlaw,.“The time has come when the courts have to take a call whether they should allow their process to be abused in this fashion, at the cost of a stigma on the very functioning of the Courts. .The Courts in the past, in the name of ‘interest of justice’ and ‘litigants should not suffer for default of others’ have been indulgent on these issues, but now, neither are the litigants illiterate or ignorant, nor found to be suffering – rather they are commercial giants who are found to be taking advantage of this indulgence.”.The bench also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Shiv Cotex where the apex court held that courts must be “sensitive to delays in justice delivery system”. The top court had also issued directions to the Courts to ensure that on every date of hearing, effective progress takes place in the suit..And when it comes to expedited hearings, the judgment also notes a circular issued by the Delhi High Court in 1987 to the trial courts..“I may in this context also notice that this Court in relation to trial before Sessions Courts had as far back as on 12th July, 1987 issued a Circular calling upon the Sessions Courts to expedite trials, as was noticed by the Supreme Court in Akil Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (2013) 7 SCC 125. This Court cannot be seen as itself doing what it has instructed the subordinate Courts not to do.”.In the end, the suit was dismissed with no costs imposed..Read the full judgment below.