Adjournments too come at a price

It is believed that a litigant who gets bail in a criminal case and a stay order in a civil case, has won the battle in India. This presumption is not unfounded. This is based on the fact that justice delivery system is prone to repeated adjournments that let the 'likely loser stay for years as not proven guilty.

Whenever somebody asks the government about this, its answer is ready; the mounting litigation is due to people's awareness of their rights, even though it has allotted funds to set up more courts. The higher courts would blame procedural law and the government's apathy, saying justice is delayed because more courts are being set up.

No wonder the legal system is more known for being efficient in causing delay. Some judgments indicate that even the SC is prone to kow-towing to the beaten tracks of procedural law that might have been differently interpreted by subordinate courts. But, the SC wouldn't mind reverting cases waiting for disposal for years to a lower court.

However, a recent judgment might have a salutary effect on pending civil cases-1.88 crore. The judgment is simple, but it may prove to be costly for those addicted to seeking adjournments. The trial is empowered to claim expenses from a party that seeks adjournment when a witness has reached the court to record evidence.  If he doesn't pay up, the court can disentitle him to examine the witness.

Justices R V Raveendran and G S Singhvi -recalls the law saying "…If the costs are not paid by the party on whom it is levied, the defaulter party will be prohibited from participating in the suit''.

Charges are levied in exceptional circumstances, but where a genuine request for adjournment is made, the court can grant such an allowance without resorting to forfeiture of the right to cross-examine.

This judgment must be read, understood and implemented by all trial courts and higher courts as a small first step to help deliver speedy justice.