Courtesy Of Passover/ Adjournment To Counsel Should Not Be Miscounstrued As Their Right: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has cautioned the lawyers that the “courtesy” of passover or adjournment granted to them during proceedings should not be construed as a “right”.Justice Girish Kathpalia observed, “...it appears that the learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff is under mistaken impression that pass overs are matter of right of the counsel. That is not so. Adjournments and pass...
The Delhi High Court has cautioned the lawyers that the “courtesy” of passover or adjournment granted to them during proceedings should not be construed as a “right”.
Justice Girish Kathpalia observed, “...it appears that the learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff is under mistaken impression that pass overs are matter of right of the counsel. 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 remarks were made while dealing with a plea challenging closure of Petitioner's right by the trial court, to cross examine a defence witness in a suit pending since the year 2006.
The Petitioner's counsel claimed he was not granted fair opportunity to cross examine the witness (DW1) insofar as he had sought a pass over till 02:30pm but the same was denied by the trial court.
The counsel appearing for the Respondent (Defendant) however told the Court that the Petitioner had been deliberately protracting the proceedings, and its counsel had taken adjournments to cross examine DW1 on three consecutive dates.
The High Court firstly observed that despite the span of 04 years, Petitioner's counsel requested for adjournment on 27.03.2024 after DW1 was chief examined. Even thereafter, on 30.08.2024, after part cross examination of DW1, the counsel again requested for adjournment. On the next date, once again the counsel sought adjournment. On the next date, once again adjournment was requested by proxy counsel, which led to closure of the right.
It further noted that Petitioner's claim that it had sought pass over on 01.08.2025 till 02:30pm is not in consonance with the trial court record, which shows that it had sought an adjournment.
Furthermore, such adjournment was initially sought on the ground of counsel's illness but on being called upon to submit medical documents, the proxy counsel sought adjournment citing family exigency of the main counsel.
“To say the least, such falsehood coming from a counsel before the trial court as well as this court is deprecated,” the Court remarked and dismissed the plea with ₹10,000 costs.
Appearance: Mr. Prabhjyot Singh, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Sahil Gupta and Mr. Arjun Aggarwal, Advocates for Respondents
Case title: M/S Ec Constructions P Ltd v. Neeraj Zutshi And Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1521
Case no.: CM(M) 1683/2025