Need to draw a line on adjournments, must digitise trial court records to reduce pendency: Delhi High Court judges

Justice Jasmeet Singh of the Delhi High Court said on Friday that courts need to draw a line when it comes to granting adjournments, and called for a three-adjournment rule to be followed..He said that even as a judge cannot say that an adjournment cannot be granted, a balance needs to be struck so that matters do not go on for years. "You need to put timelines. Like in civil suit you can say pleadings should be completed in six months, trial should conclude in so many days," the judge said. .Justice Singh was speaking at an event organised by the Delhi High Court Women Lawyers Forum on the topic 'Role of Bar in Reducing Arrear: Judicial Perspective'. .Also speaking at the event, Justice Amit Sharma said that another way to reduce pendency in the High Court is to discourage the practise of filing revisions against a magistrate's order directly to the High Court."People directly challenge orders of the magistrate in High Courts. Why? You have the Sessions judge. They should apply their mind... Mediation must also be looked at in matrimonial matters and even in economic offence cases," he said.Delhi High Court Bar Association President (DHCBA) President Mohit Mathur said that the Court should consider seating lawyers adept in a particular field on the bench."Another suggestion is to have an hands-off approach with the lower judiciary. They (lower judiciary) have given up taking stands. Higher courts must give confidence to the lower judiciary through their orders. This magnanimity must come from the top.".Justices Singh and Sharma also batted for digitisation of trial court records. "I have been sitting in criminal roster, where in revision petitions, the trial court record is must. If it's there on the first day, you can save three dates," Justice Singh said. He requested lawyers to be genuine with their clients and to give them a realistic estimate about their chance of success in a case.The judge also urged lawyers to not castigate judges when they are challenging orders, because it reflects poorly on the officer when the same lines are quoted by the courts as well.