Adjournment

Posted on by user

Adjournment

Introduction

Adjournment is the judicial act of postponing further hearing of a cause to a later date. In Indian practice it is one of the most frequently invoked procedural devices — used legitimately to secure fair preparation and, abused, as an instrument of delay. For practitioners, mastering the law and etiquette of adjournments is essential: applications are decided by judicial discretion, and outcomes turn on choice of grounds, documentary support and tactical framing. The balance courts strike is between the party’s right to a fair opportunity and the public interest in speedy disposal.

Core Legal Framework

  • Primary statutory source: adjournments are not regulated by a single, specific provision; they arise from the court’s procedural rules and inherent powers.
  • Civil side: inherent power of civil courts — Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (saving of inherent powers) underpins the court’s authority to regulate hearing dates and grant or refuse adjournments.
  • Criminal side: inherent supervisory powers of superior courts — Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (saving of inherent powers of High Court) and general trial powers under the CrPC enable courts to deal with adjournment applications affecting fair trial and prevention of abuse.
  • Court rules and practice directions:
  • Supreme Court Rules, High Court Rules and District Court/Family Court practice directions commonly contain specific guidance (limits, timelines, filing requirements) that govern adjournment practice in appellate and trial fora.
  • Commercial/fast-track/tribunal rules often impose stricter constraints (limited adjournments, cost penalties).
  • Consequential procedural provisions:
  • Order IX (non-appearance consequences) and Order XVII (hearing procedures) of the CPC (and corresponding local rules) govern consequences of non-appearance and default applications — practical consequences can include dismissal for default or ex parte proceedings if adjournment is refused or not sought properly.
  • Criminal procedure consequences (e.g., continuance of remand, production of accused/witnesses) are dealt with under relevant CrPC provisions read with judicial discretion.

Key principle: adjournments are an exercise of judicial discretion, not a litigant’s right; the applicant must show sufficient cause; courts factor in prejudice (to the other party and to public interest), delay, past conduct and viability of the ground.

Practical Application and Nuances

How adjournments work in everyday litigation and how to make them effective.

  1. Common grounds for grant
  2. Non-service / defective service: genuinely incomplete process or need for substituted service.
  3. Absence/illness of counsel or material witness: supported by medical certificate/affidavit or proof of witness engagement.
  4. Need for further time to produce crucial documents, expert reports, or forensic tests.
  5. Pending service on a necessary party or order (e.g., stay) from another court.

  6. Urgent overlapping professional engagement (but courts view this skeptically if routine or unsubstantiated).

  7. What courts expect from an adjournment application

  8. Timeliness: apply as soon as cause arises; late or last-minute oral requests attract disfavor.
  9. Particularity: specify which steps remain to be taken, why time is necessary, and a realistic estimate of duration.
  10. Evidence: affidavit of counsel/client, medical certificate, communication records showing unsuccessful service attempts, orders from other courts, expert/intimation letters.

  11. Alternatives: offering a short date, a timetable for completion, or partial hearing demonstrates reasonableness.

  12. Typical documentary support

  13. Affidavit setting out the factual matrix and chronology.
  14. Medical certificate where illness is claimed.
  15. Annexures: correspondence with witnesses, PDFs of missing documents, proof of payments/appointments.

  16. Comparative listing diary to show prior adjournments; if seeking more time on a complex point, provide a schedule.

  17. Tactical uses (legitimate and illegitimate)

  18. Legitimate: assembling voluminous documentary evidence, procuring expert opinion, enabling mediation or settlement discussions.
  19. Illegitimate: serial short adjournments to cause delay, forum shopping to avoid adverse interim orders, tactical non-appearance.

  20. Courts can penalize abuse through costs, striking pleadings, or imposing conditional adjournments.

  21. Practical examples

  22. Civil suit: Plaintiff applies for an adjournment because a key expert’s report will be ready in three weeks; affidavit annexes booking confirmation and expert’s letter. Court grants a single adjournment subject to producing the report on the next date and pays costs.
  23. Criminal trial: Defence seeks adjournment because a material witness is abroad; defence files ticket, correspondence and proposes alternative (video deposition). Court refuses extended adjournment, offers limited adjournment to secure witness via rogatory or orders recorded deposition, warns against further delay.

  24. Appellate listing: Counsel seeks adjournment in Supreme Court alleging personal engagement. Court refuses; cites backlog and grants strict short date or strikes down notice of motion with heavy costs.

  25. Consequences of repeated adjournments

  26. Courts mark the matter as “not to be adjourned” or “no further adjournments”, proceed ex parte or dismiss for default (civil) or proceed with trial in absence (criminal).
  27. Repeated adjournments strengthen the opponent’s application for costs and for adverse inferences.

Landmark Judgments

  • R.S. Nayak v. A. R. Antulay, (1984) 2 SCC 183
  • Principle: The Supreme Court emphasised that courts should not grant adjournments as a matter of course. The judgment requires that adjournments be granted only for sufficient cause and that judicial delay must be avoided; unnecessary adjournments hamper the administration of justice. The decision is frequently cited to oppose frivolous or tactical adjournment applications, especially in appellate courts.

  • Practical takeaway from the ruling: counsel must present cogent reasons and documentary proof when seeking delay; courts will scrutinize prior conduct and the necessity of postponement.

  • (Practice-oriented note) High Court practice directions and numerous High Court decisions have reinforced R.S. Nayak’s approach: e.g., Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court practice directives confine adjournments, insist on written applications and pre-listing intimation, and often require medical evidence or counsel’s certification. (Practitioners should consult the specific High Court’s current practice directions applicable to the registry where their matter is listed.)

Strategic Considerations for Practitioners

How to use or oppose adjournments effectively.

  1. When seeking an adjournment — best practice checklist
  2. File a short, focused application with an affidavit explaining:
    • Why time is necessary.
    • What specific steps will be completed in the adjourned period.
    • Why the delay does not prejudice the other side or the public interest.
  3. Produce contemporaneous documentary proof (medical certificate, correspondence, payment/receipt for report, travel documents).
  4. Offer alternatives: a fixed short date, partial hearing, or production of a witness by deposition.

  5. If multiple adjournments have already been taken, be prepared to show why the present application differs materially from earlier ones.

  6. When opposing an adjournment — how to frame submissions

  7. Demonstrate prejudice: e.g., loss of evidence, witness memory fading, contractual timelines, commercial prejudice.
  8. Produce the matter’s adjournment history (dates and reasons) to show pattern/abuse.
  9. Argue proportionality: why the purpose of the adjournment is insufficient against the public interest in expedition.

  10. Offer a pragmatic solution (short date, expedited production of single document, conditional adjournment subject to costs).

  11. Using costs and conditions strategically

  12. Propose or seek costs where adjournment would be prejudicial or has been abused.
  13. Ask courts to grant conditional adjournments — limited duration, requirement to file interim affidavit, or deposit of costs.

  14. Use conditional acceptance: consent to one adjournment but reserve right to seek costs if further delay sought.

  15. Virtual hearings and modern practice

  16. Post-pandemic practice requires readiness for virtual hearings; last-minute physical adjournment requests are less compelling when an effective virtual hearing is available.

  17. File digital bundles and be prepared to join and argue on short notice; registries increasingly insist on showing cause why virtual hearing cannot be used.

  18. Avoiding common pitfalls

  19. Don’t rely on courteous, oral requests alone — put application on record.
  20. Avoid vague affidavits (e.g., “counsel occupied elsewhere” without particulars).
  21. Don’t repeatedly seek short adjournments; courts track and penalize pattern of same-day requests.

  22. Never mislead the court about past dates or engagements — false explanations invite severe sanctions.

  23. Special contexts

  24. Commercial courts: statutory timelines under Commercial Courts Act and consent terms may limit adjournments; ask for reference to practice directions.
  25. Family matters and injunctions: courts balance emotional/family exigencies, but will look for empathy-appropriate proof (medical, school calendar) rather than mere convenience.
  26. Criminal trials: courts weigh accused’s liberty and prejudice to prosecution; repeated adjournments may justify action under speedy trial principles.

Conclusion

Adjournment is a routine but potent procedural tool: when used rightly, it protects a party’s right to fair preparation; when abused, it undermines justice through delay. Practitioners must treat adjournment applications as advocacy exercises — contemporaneous, particularized, documented and solution-oriented. Courts exercise a cautious discretion: show necessity, minimize prejudice, offer alternatives, and be prepared for costs if the adjournment inconveniences the opposite party or obstructs the court’s duty to expeditious disposal. Remember R.S. Nayak’s cautionary principle — adjournments are exceptional, not routine; craft your applications and oppositions with that judicially enunciated restraint in mind.