Litigant Seeking Adjournments From Trial Court Can't Invoke High Court's Supervisory Jurisdiction U/Art 227 For Expeditious Proceedings: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is not permissible for a litigant to seek adjournments before a Trial Court and thereafter invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking expeditious proceedings. Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with a petition seeking a direction to the Additional District Judge, Karkardooma Courts, to decide expeditiously,...
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is not permissible for a litigant to seek adjournments before a Trial Court and thereafter invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking expeditious proceedings.
Justice C Hari Shankar was dealing with a petition seeking a direction to the Additional District Judge, Karkardooma Courts, to decide expeditiously, the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for decreeing the suit on admissions.
At the outset, the Court noted that out of the five occasions on which the matter was listed before the Trial Court for hearing of arguments on the application, dates were taken by the petitioner on two occasions.
Accordingly, the Court observed thus:
"It is ordinarily not permissible for a litigant to seek adjournments before the trial court and, thereafter, invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking expediting of the proceedings."
Noting that the prayer in the petition merely related to an application under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, which essentially involved consideration of the issue as to whether there were admissions by the defendant which was sufficient to justify decreeing of the suit, the Court disposed of the plea with the direction to the Trial Court to decide the application as expeditiously as possible.
"It is made clear that this Court is not issuing any time bound direction," the Court added.
Recently, the Court had imposed a cost of Rs. 11,000 on a party seeking directions to the Trial Court to expeditiously decide a civil suit, remarking that the petition was an abuse of process of court.
Justice Shankar had said that the petition was a means to try and use the High Court as an avenue to pressurise the trial court in dealing with the matter.
"This is not what Article 227 of the Constitution of India is meant for," the Court had observed.
Case Title: DR. MANOJ BAJPAI v. MS SEEMA JASSAL
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 344