Matter adjourned 30 times: Gujarat High Court raps lawyer for non-appearance since 2024

The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday strongly criticised a lawyer after noting that his repeated non-appearance had forced the Court to adjourn a case thirty times.

The Court was hearing a pension related case filed in 2024 on behalf of an 82-year-old man.

Justice Nikhil S Kariel remarked that despite the case being filed in 2024, the matter had to be adjourned thirty times since the petitioner's lawyer did not appear even once.

"Yes sir, what do I do for you? Shall I change the premises of the High Court? where it will be convenient to you? How many times the matter has been adjourned? 30 times. Filed in the year 2024; thirty times the matter has been adjourned."

The Court questioned why such conduct should not be reported to the Bar Council.

"Somebody has come to you believing that you have filed a petition for him for his pension. Good or bad or otherwise. You for thirty times don't come to the High Court when the matter is called up. Why should I not refer to this conduct to the Bar Council? Thirty times the matter is adjourned mister," the Court said.

Justice Kariel noted that on June 25, he had passed an order granting a final chance, yet even after that date, the matter was adjourned four more times without any appearance from the lawyer.

He further remarked that if a lawyer should not take up cases if he cannot uphold the trust placed in him by the client.

"Don't do that. Don't give us, entire system a bad name. Thirty times the matter is adjourned with the learned advocate not appearing for one time. On July 25, I passed an order and I say that 'It has been filed in the month of January, twenty-seven times it has been adjourned'. There are orders which show that the learned advocates have not appeared and as a last chance I keep it on July 2. From then till today, three times the matter was adjourned. If you can't appear in matters, why do you take it up? don't take the matters."

He pointed out that an 82-year-old man was claiming he had not received his pension, yet after a month, the lawyer would mention the matter before another court seeking priority because of the petitioner’s age, as though the entire fault lay with the court.

The Court also observed that, after fifty years, it is unlikely that the concerned government department would still have the necessary documents in relation to the petitioner's claims.

"Have you ever approached the department? When did you approach? 49 years and what did the department replied? Naturally after 49 years what will be available with the department?. Forget the earlier bench, you don't appear before the bench. What additional papers would he have after 51 years? I will not ask them to answer this. After 50 years why should the department do all the running around for you? There has to be some limit...naturally how can they reply after 49 years? Your client does not have papers, what papers will they provide after half century? If you wake up after half a century, filing such petitions and then not coming to Court."

The matter will be heard again tomorrow (August 12).