“Chalta Rahe, Chalta Rahe” - a catchy slogan by a popular television commercial using a court as a setting, advertises the long-lasting ability of its plywood to take a repeated battering of the Judge’s gavel as the same matter goes on and on in a court for years on end. It is uncanny how this black humour which is much suited to television can make one smirk but in a real court room can bring a litigant to tears.

In a recent matter before the Delhi High Court, Mr. Justice S. N. Dhingra, gave a sharp rebuke to an advocate for wanting an adjournment for as frivolous a reason as his “senior’s car was stolen which contained the files for the matter.”

Seems like creativity is the last option some will resort to for seeking adjournments and delaying matters in Court.

In the same Order, Justice Dhingra further recorded that the same advocate in the same matter, just two days later argued the matter before another Bench of the High Court despite the files still remaining stolen! The Judge recommended the petitioner to take action against the errant Advocate and seek appropriate remedy from the Bar Council of India for unnecessarily causing delay in a matter.

Such is an example of the ‘Adjournment Culture’ that is creeping into the judicial system, which is most unwanted and unwarranted. Litigants, who start their litigation journey, if it may be called so, end up spending time and money well beyond their imagination and resources. A moot question that to ponder over is whether litigation results in the punishment of another or to oneself! Who is to blame - the advocates who seek adjournments or the judges that grant them?

The Bombay High Court has, through a recent order, established that an adjournment will not come cheap, and imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the Central Government, whose counsel sought an adjournment for filing an Affidavit-in-Reply to a Writ Petition filed by a petitioner although the Central Government had already been granted time and opportunity to file the same, but were not ready on the day of the hearing. Whether a measure like this would be a deterrent or a mere a rap on the knuckle is to be seen.

The law does provide sufficient safeguards against adjournments. Order XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) provides that only three adjournments will be granted to a party during the course of the suit. Further, it provides that adjournments will only be granted for a ‘sufficient cause’ and ‘where the circumstances are beyond the control of a party’.

Though the law exists, sadly, it is the implementation and enforcement which is lacking.

Similar problems are being faced the world over, and some countries have taken certain measures to curb the problem. In New York’s Manhattan there are special ‘night courts’ which primarily deal with in criminal matters and are even located in high crime areas. In these courts, matters are expedited and disposed of in a quick manner.

Taking a cue from this, there is a proposal in the United Kingdom to set-up special courts which will hear matters from 10 a.m. till midnight. It is planned to give these courts special jurisdiction.

Similarly, we in India too need to take up the issue seriously and tackle the problem head-on. What seems most viable would be some change being proposed by the legislature or through guidelines issued by the higher judiciary, namely the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Steps have been taken to make cases time bound through specially designated ‘fast-track courts’ having designated criminal jurisdiction, and specialised tribunals such as the Consumer Fora.

A few other solutions that may be considered are:

• Judges should be more strict and stringent while granting adjournments and must follow due procedure as per the CPC. • Specific time limits should be set for filing of certain documents. Currently there is no uniformity of time limit for filing documents and Advocates seek weeks and sometimes months for filing their documents. • Matters should be specifically time bound. Enforcing this will discourage judges from granting adjournments as well as advocates from seeking it. • Lawyers, being officers of the court, should deter their clients from seeking adjournments and must help the courts in expediting matters. • Fill up vacancies to meet the sanctioned requirement of Judges in the Courts. For example, the Bombay High Court has a sanction for 75 Judges, but currently has only 62 sitting Judges. Further there should also be an increase in the number of sanctioned Judges for quicker disposal of matters. • Courts should function for longer hours so that arguments can be completed and lawyers do not have to take adjournments. Currently, the Bombay High Court sits for only five hours per day.

Simple yet effective measures like the aforesaid suggestions can drastically reduce the burden on courts and facilitate in speedier and more effective justice as is guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.

Rahul Kothari is an associate at Hariani & Co in Mumbai