The Gauhati High Court held that litigants cannot seek repeated adjournments during trial and later blame their lawyers for the resulting delay to reopen or prolong the proceedings. The Court said such tactics cannot be permitted in the interest of justice.
The Gauhati High Court ruled that litigants cannot repeatedly request adjournments during the trial and then, after the proceedings are delayed, blame their lawyers in order to restart or prolong the case.
The Court noted that while courts may condone procedural delays in appropriate situations, this power cannot be used routinely when a party has persistently failed to act with due diligence.
Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer made these observations while dismissing a petition that challenged the trial court’s decision to close the plaintiffs’ evidence in a title dispute. The High Court noted that the plaintiffs had been given 11 opportunities over almost two years to file their evidence, yet they failed to do so.
The case began as a title suit filed by Sayed Maqsud Ahmed, who sought a declaration that a sale deed executed in favour of one of his sons was secured by exploiting Ahmed’s poor health and mental condition. After Ahmed’s death in 2021, his wife, son, and daughter were brought on record as plaintiffs.
During the trial, the trial court repeatedly granted time to the plaintiffs to submit their evidence. However, following repeated defaults, it closed their evidence on September 21, 2024. The plaintiffs’ request to recall that order was also rejected, leading them to approach the High Court.
Before the High Court, the plaintiffs argued that they had engaged a new advocate after discovering that their earlier counsel had not filed the evidence. They claimed they had believed the previous lawyer was handling the case diligently and insisted the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate.
They further urged the Court to allow them to lead evidence by paying costs, citing the advanced age and medical condition of some plaintiffs.
The defendant opposed the plea, contending that the plaintiffs had already been granted multiple chances by the trial court and that the suit initiated in 2019 had progressed to the stage of final arguments. The defendant argued that reopening the evidence at that point would only extend the litigation.
Rejecting the plaintiffs’ petition, the High Court held that although the trial court’s discretion to excuse procedural lapses exists, it must be applied with care where adjournments had already been granted repeatedly. The Court emphasized that the behaviour of the litigant is an important consideration in such matters.
Justice Longkumer observed,
“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,”
The Court further found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstance that prevented them from filing their evidence even after repeated opportunities spanning nearly two years.
The Court remarked,
“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,”
Considering that allowing the petition at such a late stage would further delay a suit pending since 2019, the High Court held that there was no basis to interfere with the trial court’s order. Accordingly, it dismissed the petition.