Prolonged second appeal delay and repeated adjournments did not justify interference with the impugned order.

Prolonged pendency of a second appeal, repeated adjournments and non-appearance of counsel were treated as serious impediments to the administration of justice. The Court stressed that expeditious disposal is integral to adjudication and that adjournments should not be granted mechanically where a matter is stagnating. It noted that the restoration and repeated adjournment of the appeal reflected inordinate delay, but no interference was warranted because the constitutional court concerned was expected to deal with the matter in the manner it considered appropriate. The petition was disposed of without disturbing the impugned order.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with the High Court's handling of the second appeal in view of repeated adjournments and inordinate delay.

Analysis: The matter concerned prolonged pendency of a second appeal, repeated adjournments, non-appearance of counsel, and the effect of such delay on the administration of justice. The Court emphasised that expeditious disposal is integral to adjudication, that adjournments should not be granted mechanically, and that the justice delivery system suffers when cases are allowed to stagnate. It noted that the High Court's conduct in repeatedly adjourning the matter and restoring the appeal after dismissal for non-prosecution reflected serious delay, but the Court also observed that the High Court, as a constitutional court, must address such matters in the manner it considers appropriate.

Conclusion: No interference was called for with the impugned order, and the petition was disposed of.

---