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.
Bombay High Court stayed a 2017 defamation case until 2046, calling it an “ego fight between the parties at the fag end of their lives,” highlighting prolonged personal disputes clogging judicial timelines.
The Delhi High Court Bar Association’s boycott of working Saturdays disrupted court functioning, leading to widespread adjournments. Despite an extensive cause list, several benches did not assemble, and matters were deferred as lawyers abstained from attending hearings.
The Supreme Court of India slammed the Government of Odisha for unexplained delays in filing appeals, calling its conduct lazy and terming the justification a lame excuse. Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma said deadline failures undermined discipline.
Today, On 25th November, Supreme Court sharply questioned a lawyer over repeated adjournment requests, asking, “Who is accountable for the 90,000 pending cases in this court?” The Bench warned that constant delays only harm litigants and reflect a lack of preparation.
The Delhi High Court ruled that adjournments and pass overs are discretionary courtesies extended by the court and cannot be used to delay proceedings or make the opposite party suffer. The court dismissed a 2006 civil suit petition, imposing a Rs 10,000 cost on the petitioner.
