Non-availability of Senior Advocate no ground for adjournment under CPC: Gurugram Court

A trial court in Gurugram recently rejected an adjournment sought on the ground of non-availability of Senior Advocate, observing that the roster of the presiding judge cannot be tinkered with [Vivek Khushalani vs M/s Fruitful Construction]..Additional District Judge Jasbir Singh held that non-availability of an advocate on account of being engaged in another court is not a ground for adjournment under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). "As per the Order 17 Rule 2(c) of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), non-availability of an advocate on account of being engaged in another court is not a ground for adjournment," the Court said.The Court further said that since the arguments of the appellant had already concluded, the plea by respondents for adjournment by three weeks could not be entertained."Since the arguments have already been concluded by the counsels for the appellants in all the appeals, then request of the counsels for respondent No.1, in all the appeals, for adjourning the matter on a Saturday or on 24th or 25th of this month, can not be entertained, because the roster of the court is within the exclusive domain of the presiding Judge and same can not be allowed to be tinkered with impliedly or explicitly in any way," the Court said..The observations were made after advocates Mukesh Yadav and Ashwani Rao appearing for the respondents in a case, did not advance arguments and instead sought adjournment on the ground that Senior Advocate Ashish Chopra, who was to argue, was not available.They told the court that Chopra had apprised the judge of his non availability in advance and it had agreed to list the matter on any Saturday for him to advance his arguments. Despite that the Court did not change the dates already fixed, it was pointed out. They, therefore, requested the matter to be listed on any Saturday and if possible, on the 24th or 25th of the month..The counsel for the appellants and other respondents argued that as per Order 17 Rule 2 (c) of CPC, non-availability of an advocate on account of being engaged in another court, shall not be a ground for adjournment..They further argued that a Senior Advocate appears on the instruction of the instructing counsel(s) and therefore, there can not be any ground for adjournment to accommodate non-appearance of the designated senior counsel. .The Court agreed with the appellants and observed that the advocates for the respondent could choose to argue the matter themselves or get it argued by any other senior counsel.After noting that the appellants had concluded their arguments, it declined the request holding that it was without merit. However, taking a lenient view and also taking into account the docket of the court, the case was adjourned to November 19, 2022, a Saturday, for arguments by the respondent. "It shall be the last opportunity for the said purpose and in case of non-advancing of arguments, this Court shall be constrained to take the matter further for passing appropriate orders," the Court added.Advocates Vineet Malhotra and Vishal Gohri appeared for the appellants.Advocates Abhijat, Mohit Paul, JK Dang and Rajesh Kumar represented the other respondents.[Read Order]