Bookmark this Post to Save you Later!

Bookmark this Post to Save you Later!

Researcher: Raja Abhishek

Q1. Whether the Limit of Three Adjournments is Mandatory or Recommendatory?

A1. Maximum Limit is recommendatory.

Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association vs Union of India

(2005) 6 SCC 344 :: AIR 2005 SC 3353

Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.17 R.1 Proviso, O.17 R.2 Proviso— Adjournment - Restriction of three adjournments - Provision has to be read down - More than three adjournments can be granted when circumstances are beyond control of party - Provisos to Rr. 1 and 2 to be read together.

Q2. Can adjournment be granted without evidence?

A2. No, Supporting Evidence is needed.

Supreme Court in Zila Parishad, Ferozepur vs Satnam Singh

1994 AIR SCW 3953 :: (1994) 69 FacLR 1068 :: (1994) 4 SCT 679 :: (1994) 1 LandLR 33 :: (1994) 6 JT 46

Application for Adjournment - Ground of Illness of respondent - Not supported by Affidavit or Medical Certificate - Application Rejected

Note: In this case, Adjournment was sought through Telegram

For youngsters Telegram in this case is not messaging app which you use today!

Q3. Can short adjournment or accommodation be refused?

A3. The court cannot refuse short accommodation.

Supreme Court in B. P. Moideen Sevamandir v. A. M. Kutty Hassan

(2009) 2 SCC 198 :: (2009) 1 KLT 235

Adjournment - Counsel, ready in pre-lunch session, seeking accomodation in post-lunch session on ground of sudden illness or physical ailment - Court cannot refuse short accommodation -

Rejection of such request and dismissal of appeal on ground that appellant was cantakerous and unreasonable before Lok Adalat - Not sustainable.

Q4. Can the Court refuse to grant adjournment due to the sudden illness of Pleader?

A4. No

Supreme Court in Bashir Ahmed v. Mehmood Hussain Shah

AIR 1995 SC 1857 :: (1995) 3 SCC 529

The court is satisfied that the party applying for adjournment could not have engaged another pleader in time. The word "in time" means within a reasonable time.

Adjournment - Grant of - Matter posted for cross-examination of plaintiff - Case adjourned to next date - Counsel falling ill during night - Party, defendant, seeking adjournment - Court, not only not granting adjournment but ordering forfeiture of right to cross-examine -

Order not justified - Engaging new Counsel would be fraught with grave risk and unrealistic - Court should have adjourned case for next date so as to enable defendant to have another Counsel engaged and given instructions to new Counsel to proceed with cross-examination in the light of pleadings and issues raised. Decision of High Court, Reversed.

Do you want me to continue this post and write the next part?

Do you find this post and research useful?

Raja Abhishek

NIRC Candidate