Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O. XVII, Rr. 2 & 3, O. XVII, R. 1

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----O. XVII, Rr. 2 & 3---Court may proceed notwithstanding either party fails to produce evidence, etc---Defendant failing to appear at the time fixed by Court for cross-examination of plaintiff's witnesses---Effect---Right to cross-examination, closure of---Record showed that on 27.04.2005, an adjournment was sought by both the parties to the suit for recovery of damages, and the matter was adjourned for 31.05.2005---When the case was taken up on 31.05.2005, an adjournment was sought by the counsel of the plaintiff (respondent) citing the reason that the plaintiff was unwell---Thereafter, the Court vide order dated 31.5.2005 in a very judicious and fair manner granted and allowed last and final opportunity to both the parties and in the same order directed that the examination-in-chief of the plaintiff would take place on 14.07.2005 at 09:30 AM---Plaintiff produced three witnesses, on 14.07.2005 at 09:30 AM, who recorded their examination-in-chief, but the defendant's (petitioner's) counsel did not show up at all, despite the fact that the Court waited until 01:00 PM on 14.07.2005---Two adjournments were entertained by the Trial Court, one on 27.04.2005 and one on 31.05.2005---Therefore, the only options available to the Court, vis-a-vis the matter before it, were in Rules 2 and 3 of Order XVII of C.P.C.---Rule 2 states that if a party has failed to appear on a date to which a matter was adjourned, then the Court can either "dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed in that behalf by Order IX or make such order as it thinks fit."---Since, the Court did not dispose of the suit, it could only make such order as it thought fit---This order was to close the present petitioner's (defendant's) right to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent (plaintiff)---Furthermore, the Court's order of 14.07.2005, which closed the present petitioner's right to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent, also enjoyed the protection of Rule 3 of Order XVII of C.P.C.---Therefore, since the present petitioner could not be allowed any further adjournments, the only logical conclusion the Court could arrive at was to close the present petitioner's right of cross-examining the witnesses, and it did so, by order dated 14.07.2005---Supreme Court observed that suppose that the present petitioner, who as the record showed marked his presence in the cause-list on 14.07.2005, had appeared before the Court and requested an adjournment and the said adjournment had been denied and the present petitioner had refused to participate in the proceedings of the day, that is the examination-in-chief---This would again lead to the Court having the options available to it under Rules 2 and 3 of Order XVII of C.P.C., as a party is said to have failed to appear even if he is present in the Court and applies for adjournment, but his application is refused and he does not thereafter participate in the proceedings---However, had the present petitioner remained present to merely witness the proceedings, once his request for adjournment had been declined and he had decided not to partake in the examination-in-chief, the petitioner's presence would amount to participation in the proceedings and thus would only leave the Court to exercise the options available to it under Rule 3 of Order XVII of C.P.C.---Trial Court rightly closed the right of petitioner to cross-examine the respondent's witnesses and the High Court also quite rightly upheld the order of the Trial Court---Petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----O. XVII, R. 1---Adjournments---Discretion of the Court to grant time and adjourn hearing---Scope---Adjournments cannot be used as a delaying tactic nor can they be demanded as a matter of right---In terms of Rule 1 of Order XVII of C.P.C., 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 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---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 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---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.

Duniya Gul v. Niaz Muhammad PLD 2024 SC 672 and Arbitrary Adjournments, Discourse 2023, Sahar Saqib. ref.