Courts Can't Adjourn All Cases For Entire Day On Bar Association's Condolence Reference: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that wholesale adjournment of all matters solely on the basis of a condolence reference moved by a Bar Association is impermissible and adversely affects the administration of justice. The Court observed that while paying homage to a departed member of the Bar or Bench is a matter of institutional propriety, such ceremonial observances should not...
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that wholesale adjournment of all matters solely on the basis of a condolence reference moved by a Bar Association is impermissible and adversely affects the administration of justice.
The Court observed that while paying homage to a departed member of the Bar or Bench is a matter of institutional propriety, such ceremonial observances should not ordinarily result in suspension of judicial work for the entire day.
Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal was hearing a petition filed by a landlord challenging an order of the Rent Controller, Raipur, who had adjourned all matters listed on 2 February 2026 after suspending judicial work for the day in response to a condolence motion passed by the District Bar Association. The petitioner, a 72-year-old senior citizen pursuing an eviction suit under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, contended that the impugned order was part of a recurring practice of mechanically adjourning cases due to condolence references, administrative duties, or the non-availability of the Presiding Officer, thereby frustrating the statutory mandate of expeditious disposal of rent disputes.
Accepting the petitioner's submissions, the Court held that strikes and boycotts by advocates are illegal and courts cannot adjourn matters merely because lawyers abstain from work. The Court further noted that abstention from judicial work even on account of condolence references is deprecated, emphasizing that uninterrupted access to justice is a constitutional obligation.
The Court further held that every litigant has a legitimate expectation that his case will be heard on the date fixed unless circumstances beyond judicial control make such hearing impossible. It observed that a blanket adjournment of all matters without considering whether any case required urgent hearing and without affording an opportunity to the parties present to press for hearing amounted to an improper exercise of judicial discretion.
“… access to justice is an integral component of the guarantee under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution… A wholesale adjournment of all matters listed before a court or tribunal, without examining whether any matter requires urgent consideration and without affording an opportunity to the parties present to press for hearing, adversely affects the administration of justice,” the Court observed.
The Court also noted that repeated interruptions in judicial work defeat the legislative objective of expeditious adjudication under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act and are inconsistent with the constitutional principle of speedy justice. It emphasized that though an order of adjournment ordinarily falls within the procedural discretion of the court, such discretion must always be exercised to advance the cause of justice and cannot be founded solely upon an extraneous request emanating from a body which is not a party to the lis.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the Rent Controller's order dated 2 February 2026 insofar as it adjourned the petitioner's case solely because of the condolence reference.
Case Title: Satpal Gandhi v. Girdharilal Agrawal & Anr. [WP227 No. 580 of 2026]