23/09/2024
PLD 2024 SC 887
پیشی کلچر کی حوصلہ شکنی کے حوالے سے سپریم کورٹ کا ایک اور انتہائی سخت فیصلہ
It is unfortunate that adjournments have become a plague for the country's justice system . On 31 December 2023 , a net pendency of 2.26 million cases was reported in the country and 1.86 million of the cases out of the total pendency , which is around 82 % , are pending adjudication before the District Judiciary . And despite this mammoth pendency , which undoubtedly has only grown since 31 December 2023 , the adjournment culture continues unabated which robs litigants of the right to speedy justice and further exacerbates the inefficient judicial system crisis . The failure of the courts to deal promptly with backlogs involves very human (Naeem)consequences : controversies are prolonged ; hard feelings emphasized ; families suffer privation from their inability to obtain relief. As a result , people seeking relief become embittered and hate the courts and the law because the legal profession has not lived up to its responsibilities in a field where its responsibilities are primary and almost exclusive.
Having said that , adjournments cannot be used as a delaying tactic nor can they be demanded as a matter of right , and yet the reality is quite different .
Adjournments cannot be demanded as a matter of right and Rule 1 of Order XVII of CPC , as reproduced above , is perspicuous in (Naeem)this regard , as a Court " may " grant time and adjourn , and that too if " sufficient cause is shown . " It is only logical that this sufficient cause may only be shown by way of an application in writing , meaning that any party to a suit or any other proceeding before a Court , can request an adjournment only if it satisfies the Court by way of submitting an application for adjournment in writing , along with evidence attached of the predicament or ailment that they are facing , for which an (Naeem)adjournment is the only solution . It is then up to the Court , whether to accept the adjournment application or to proceed with the matter at hand . If the Court is to accept the adjournment application then it must immediately decide on whether or not to impose costs to the party requesting an adjournment . The decision on costs is necessary for multiple reasons . Frivolous adjournments incur a significant cost , and are a gross misappropriation of the already limited Court funds and facilities ; the cost of a court to be in session , the salaries of all parties involved and maintenance of the courtroom are (Naeem)just a few of the expenditures and facilities which are not being utilized every time there is an adjournment granted on dubious grounds ; it is also an unjust and inexcusable charge on the litigant's pocket ; as many parties to the suit suffer great losses in the form of travel costs , opportunity costs , and daily wages ; furthermore , an unseen but deeply felt social and psychological cost is also borne by litigating parties.5 It is pertinent to state here that once a decision on whether or not to impose costs for seeking an adjournment has been taken , the Court has to record the reasons for granting an adjournment and why or why not costs have imposed on a party which sought adjournment .
On the flipside , what happens when a Court does not allow a request for adjournment ? The matter is to proceed as envisioned in Rule 3 of Order XVII of CPC . Rule 3 uses etcetera at the end of its title , (Naeem)which would encompass everything else apart from production of evidence , and further states that if any party to a suit fails to " perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit , for which time has been allowed " the Court " notwithstanding such default , proceed to decide the suit forthwith .
C.P.L.A.2849-L/2015
Lutfullah Virk v. Muhammad Aslam Sheikh
