"Biggest Menace": Kerala High Court Says Time-Bound Case Dispoal Not Taking Place Due To Unnecessary Adjournments Sought By Lawyers

Justice A. Badharudeen stated that due to unnecessary adjournment of cases, justice had been denied to real aggrieved persons. It further stated that time-bound disposal of cases was not taking place due to unnecessary adjournments.

“Even though lawyers are duty bound to co-operate with the Court in the matter of disposal and that is what is intended by co-operation between the Bar and the Bench in letter and spirit, time bound disposal of cases could not be materialized because of unnecessary adjournments. This is the biggest menace and the same is the reason for huge pendency of matters before all courts”, stated the Court.

The Court added that judges were unable to distinguish between genuine requests made by lawyers who were really suffering from illnesses since some lawyers use illness as a ground to seek unnecessary adjournments even after the case was posted for final hearing.

“No doubt, some adjourment requests on the ground of illness are genuine, but majority are not. In such situation, it is very difficult to identify the genuine requests on the ground of illness. It is shocking to note that nobody is cared of the position of the Judge, who is prepared and ready to hear a matter posted for hearing with endorsement `hearing finally', 'last chance' and 'for disposal'. In such matters also, some advocates seek adjournment again and invariably the ground for adjournment is 'illness'. Then, the Judge would be put into dilemma and dejection, because the Judge feels that, his hard work giving a go-by to sound sleep being spoiled”, stated the Court

Background

The petitioner was the third accused in an offense registered under the NDPS Act and is pending before the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Special Court (Additional Sessions Court-IV), Thiruvananthapuram. He approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking disposal of the case within six months due to the illness of his counsel- Advocate Celine Wilfred of Trivandrum Bar.

The High Court had directed the trial court to dispose of the case within three months while considering the bail application of the petitioner. The trial court had declined to grant an adjournment of six months to Advocate Celine Wilfred on grounds of illness.

During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel expired.

Adjournment Of Cases Under CPC & CrPC

The Court analyzed the provisions under the CPC and CrPC regarding the adjournment of cases. It stated that Order XVII of CPC governs adjournments in civil cases and Section 309 of the CrPC deals with the powers of the criminal court for postponing or adjourning proceedings. On analysing the provisions, the Court said, “….if the pleader/advocate does not prepare for the case and seeks an adjournment, it can lead to costs being imposed on his/her party and to be realised from the pleader/advocate.”

It stated that during the COVID pandemic, pleaders and parties sought adjournments on legitimate grounds. It stated that COVID symptoms had ceased and were no longer used as grounds for seeking adjournment of cases. 

The Court further stated that the convenience of a party or lawyer cannot interdict the process of trial or hearing in civil or criminal cases except by law. It said:

“Court has a legal duty to start trial in accordance with the convenience of the court subject to the conditions provided in Order XVII of the C.P.C and Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. and to hear and dispose of cases, and such power cannot be interdicted merely on the ground of inconvenience of the party/ies or his/their lawyers and if such a proposition is accepted, the day-to-day trial envisaged under Section 309 of the Cr.P.C and the mandate of Order XVII of the C.P.C would become redundant and law does not permit the same.”

Pendency Of Cases

The Court stated that cases were not disposed of timely due to adjournment of cases which leads to a huge pendency of cases. “Since I am dealing with Second Appeals, Execution Second Appeals, Miscellaneous Second Appeals and Regular Second Appeals, I had a glimpse on the total pendency of matters during the month of February, 2024. Registry placed statements showing the total pendency which is 12,536”,  stated the Court.

The Court further stated that some advocates were not cooperating with the Court and sought adjournment on many grounds including illness as their last weapon. It stated that judges who study and prepare the case willing to dispose of it face difficulty, dilemma, and dejection on such adjournments. 

In the facts of the case, the Court allowed the petition and granted two weeks for the petitioner to appoint a lawyer of his choice and to study the case. It also directed the Trial Court to complete the trial within six weeks after the appointment of the lawyer.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Nireesh Mathew

Counsel for Respondent: Senior Public Prosecutor K Denny Devassy

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 167

Case title: Gokul Raj v State of Kerala

Case number: O.P(Crl.) No.108 of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment