Provision For Seeking Adjournment Under Order XVII Rule 1 CPC Is Rule Of Procedure, Directory In Nature: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High court on Monday, through single judge, Prithviraj K.Chavan, regarded how Rules of procedure (in this case provision of seeking adjournments under Order XVII Rule 1 CPC) are indeed "handmaids of justice" and are meant to advance ends of justice and not to thwart or obstruct the same.Accordingly, the court agreed to grant more opportunities for evidence to a recalcitrant Petitioner at his own responsibility, on payment of heavy costs of Rs. 1 lakh. Petitioners are original plaintiffs. A Special Civil Suit has been filed seeking relief of declaration and cancellation of development agreement as well as perpetual injunction and damages qua the suit property, which is described in the plaint. The petitioners have come up with a case that unilateral revocation of the irrevocable power of attorney, despite the same being legally enforceable and binding upon defendant No.1, has caused great prejudice to the petitioners and, therefore, the respondents defendants need to be injuncted. The petitioners had sought several adjournments in the suit and was granted a last chance. The trial court observed that the suit was pending for more than ten years, which was to be dealt with expeditiously in view of the directions of the High Court by giving preference to the old suits. The cross-examination of the petitioners could not be completed owing to their repeated absence, and, ultimately, evidence of the petitioners was closed.Order XVII Rule 1 of CPC contemplates that only if sufficient cause is shown at any stage of the suit, the Court may grant time to the parties and adjourn hearing. The proviso states that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the suit.The court noted that while exercising discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court, indeed, has no limits, fetters or restrictions to exercise its powers of superintendence for ensuring to advance ends of justice and uproot injustice.Reference was made to Sainath Amonkar and Ors. Vs. Mr.Ravindra K.Amonkar and Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1072, where similar issue on the aspect of the powers of the Court under Order XVII Rule 1 of CPC to grant adjournment was dealt with. It was held that said provision being a rule of procedure has to be held to be not mandatory but directory. The said provision has to be applied with some flexibility and not with rigidity or inflexibility. In the case at hand, suit was filed way back in 2008. Astonishingly, the Court said, petitioners themselves are responsible for protracting the trial of the suit for more than twelve years under one pretext or the other. In order to alleviate sufferings and hardships of the respondents and having considered the entire circumstances, the Court said exemplary costs need to be imposed upon the petitioners while accepting their prayer. Case Title: Ramesh and ors v Smt. Prakashkaur and orsCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 131Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Provision For Seeking Adjournment Under Order XVII Rule 1 CPC Is Rule Of Procedure, Directory In Nature: Bombay High Court

Fatima Ansari

Tags