High Court raps petitioner for ‘falsehood’

The Delhi High Court has held that adjournments and pass overs are “courtesies” extended by the judiciary to assist lawyers and cannot be claimed as a matter of right, especially when such requests end up prejudicing the opposite side. The observation came while the court dismissed a plea challenging a trial court’s decision to close the plaintiff’s right to continue cross-examining a defence witness in a suit pending since 2006.

The plaintiff had approached the High Court after the trial court refused further indulgence, noting that the cost imposed for a previous adjournment had not been paid.

The matter came up before Justice Girish Kathpalia, who examined the petitioner’s claim that he had merely sought a “pass over” till 2.30 pm and had not asked for a full adjournment. The court recorded that the explanation did not hold up against the sequence of events. According to the order, the counsel first cited the illness of the main advocate, but when asked for supporting medical papers, the proxy counsel changed the ground to a family emergency.

The court noted that such shifting explanations could not be condoned. “To say the least, such falsehood coming from a counsel before the trial court as well as this court is deprecated,” Justice Kathpalia observed.

The Bench further recorded that on nearly every date of hearing, the petitioner had sought either an adjournment or a pass over, indicating a pattern of delay. The court said the petitioner appeared to be labouring under the mistaken belief that pass overs are a matter of right. “That is not so. Adjournments and pass over are courtesies extended by the court to accommodate the counsel. But that cannot be allowed to make the opposite side suffer. It is for the counsel to maintain their diary so that the other side may not suffer,” the order stated.

Since the imposed cost of Rs 5,000 had not been paid, and no application was moved seeking its waiver, the High Court held that the trial court had acted correctly in closing the plaintiff’s further cross-examination of the defence witness. It also accepted the respondents’ contention that the petitioner had been deliberately prolonging the proceedings.

Dismissing the petition, the court imposed an additional cost of Rs 10,000. “I do not find any infirmity, much less perversity, in the impugned orders, so both the impugned orders are upheld and the present petition is dismissed with cost of Rs 10,000 to be paid by the petitioner/plaintiff to the respondents through respondent no. 1 within two weeks,” Justice Kathpalia ordered.