LexGAYATHRI versus M. GIRISH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• ~016] 4 S.C.R. 15 GAYATHRI v. M. GIRISH (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 22628of2016) JULY27,2016 [DIPAK MISRA AND ROHINTON I<. NARIMAN, JJ.) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. XVII, rr. 1 & 2 - Multiple Adjournments - Dilatory tactics adopted by parties - Abuse of process of Court - Practice deprecated - In a suit filed in 2007 by Respondent-Plaintiff, a. septuagenarian, for recovery of possession and damages, examination-in-chief continued for long and the matter was adjourned seven times - Defendant sought adjournment after adjournment for cross-examination, on some pretext or the other - Permission granted by trial court, despite such indulgence neither defendant nor her counsel turned up, matter adjourned yet again - Eventually on 22.2.16, the defendant filed application under Or. XVIII, rr.17 seeking further cross-examination of Plaintiff. declined - Held: Non-concern shown by the defendant towards the proceedings of the Court is absolutely manifest - Marathon of interlocutory applications filed showing disregard to Plaintiff's old age - Defendant acted in a 1i10nner causing colossal insult to justice and to the concept of speedy disposal of civil litigation - Virus of seeking adjournment has to be controlled - Cost of Rs.50,0001- imposed, failing which right of the defendant to examine its witnesses shall stand foreclosed. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. XVII, rr. l& 2 - Adjournments - Institutional responsibility of counsels - A counsel appearing for a litigant has to have institutional responsibility - The Code of Civil Procedure so commands - Applications not to be filed on flimsy grounds and in a brazen and obtrusive manner - It is wholly reprehensible - Legal profession - Professional ethics. · Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. XVIII, r.17 - Court's power to recall and examine witnesses - Purpose of filing applications under. reiterated. 15 A 8 c D E F G H 16 A B c D E F SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R. Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court HELD: 1.1. In the case at hand; the examination-in-chief continued for long and the matter was adjourned seven times. The defendant sought adjournment after adjournment for cross- examination on some pretext or the other which are. really not entertainable in law. But the trial Court eventually granted permission subject to payment of costs. Regardless of the allowance extended, the defendant stood embedded on his adamantine platform and prayed for adjournment as if it was his right to seek adjournment on any ground whatsoever and in any circumstance. The non-concern of the defendant-petitioner shown towards the proceedings of the Court was absolutely manifest. The disregard shown to the plaintiff's age was also visible from the marathon of interlocutory applications filed. A counsel appearing for a litigant has to have institutional responsibility. The Code of Civil Procedure so commands. Applications not to be filed in such a brazen and obtrusive manner. It is wholly reprehensible. The law does not countenance it. [Para 10) [21- D-H) 1.2. In the case at hand, the defendant-petitioner acted in a manner to cause colossal insult to justice and to the concept of speedy disposal of civil litigation. The virus of seeking adjournment has to be controlled. The saying of Gita "Awake! Arise! Oh! Partha" is apt here to be stated for guidance of trial courts. Cost of Rs.50,000/- imposed, to be paid to the State Legal Services Authority, Karnataka, failing which the right of defence to examine its witnesses would stand foreclosed. [Paras 13 and 14) [23-A-D) Case Law Reference· 2011 (4) SCR 31 referred to Para 6 2013 (2) SCR 116 referred to Para 8 G 2011 (10) SCR 787 referred to Para 11 2013 (3) SCR 1146 referred to Para 12 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition No. 22628 of2016. From the Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2016 of the High Court H of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 36022 of2016. GAYATHRI v. M. GIRISH 17 Ashwin V. Kotemath, Mrs. S. Usha Reddy, Advs. for the A Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. If a case ever exposed the maladroit efforts ofa litigant to indulge in abuse of the process of Court, the present one is a resplendent example. The factual narration, to which we shall advert to immediately hereinafter, would limpidly show that the defendant- petitioner has endeavoured ve
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.