Litigant cannot seek repeated adjournments, then blame lawyer for delay: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court recently held that litigants cannot repeatedly seek adjournments in a case and later shift the blame to their lawyers for delay in hearing the matter [Sayed Maqsud Ahmed v. Khurshid Ali Ahmed].

Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer observed that while courts have the discretion to condone delays and grant relief despite procedural lapses, such discretion cannot be exercised mechanically after repeated adjournments.

The judge said that courts must consider whether the litigant had acted negligently, abused the process of law or deliberately attempted to prolong the proceedings before accepting the explanation that the delay was attributable to counsel.

The observations came while refusing to interfere with orders closing the plaintiffs’ evidence in a title suit on the ground that they had been granted 11 opportunities over nearly two years before the trial court proceeded with the case.

The case arose from a title suit filed by one Sayed Maqsud Ahmed seeking a declaration that a sale deed executed in favour of one of his sons had been obtained by taking advantage of his poor health and mental condition. Following Ahmed’s death in 2021, his wife, son and daughter were substituted as plaintiffs in the suit.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the trial court repeatedly granted the plaintiffs time to file their evidence. However, after they failed to do so despite multiple opportunities, it closed their evidence on September 21, 2024. An application seeking recall of that order was later rejected, prompting the plaintiffs to approach the High Court.

According to the plaintiffs, after the trial court closed their evidence on September, they engaged a new advocate who informed them that their evidence had not been filed and that the trial court had already closed their right to do so.

They claimed they were under the impression that their previous counsel had been diligently handling the case and contended that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. They also cited the advanced age and medical condition of some of the plaintiffs and urged the High Court to permit them to lead evidence, relying on earlier decisions where such relief had been granted on payment of costs.

The defendant opposed the plea. They pointed out that the plaintiffs had been granted repeated opportunities by the trial court but had failed to act diligently. It was further submitted that the suit, instituted in 2019, had already reached the stage of final arguments and reopening the proceedings at that stage would only prolong the litigation.

The High Court observed that while it retained the discretion to permit delayed filing in appropriate cases, such discretion had to be exercised strictly where repeated adjournments had already been granted.

It said the conduct of the litigant was a relevant consideration in such cases.

“This Court has to consider the conduct of the plaintiffs/petitioners and to see whether there is negligence on their part or abuse of the process or deliberate attempt to prolong the suit. Each case has to be decided on its own merits,” it noted.

The Court found that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstance explaining why they could not file their evidence despite repeated opportunities granted over nearly two years.

“It is surprising to note that till the year 2024, the evidence-in-chief of the PWs was yet to be filed even after the court granted 11 adjournments,” the Court observed.

Allowing the petition at such a belated stage would only prolong a suit that had been pending since 2019 and would not serve the interests of justice, the High Court said while dismissing the petition.

[Read Order]