Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals; Condemns Adjournment Misuse, Upholds Decision Limiting Cross-Examination Rights.

The SC dismissed the SLPs, affirming lower court decisions to close the petitioner's right to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness due to repeated misuse of adjournments. The court condemned the adjournment culture, emphasizing its detrimental impact on the justice system, and stressed the necessity for timely case resolutions to maintain public trust.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Misuse of adjournments by the petitioner.
2. Closure of the right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness.
3. Impact of repeated adjournments on the justice delivery system.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Misuse of Adjournments by the Petitioner:
The Supreme Court highlighted that the case exemplifies the misuse of adjournments granted by the court. The petitioner repeatedly sought adjournments from 2015 to 2019, despite being given last opportunities and even after costs were imposed. The court emphasized that such behavior is an "insult to justice and the concept of speedy disposal of cases." The court condemned the practice of seeking repeated adjournments on various pretexts, noting that it contributes to delays in the justice delivery system.

2. Closure of the Right to Cross-Examine the Plaintiff’s Witness:
The petitioner’s right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness was closed by the Trial Court on 21.12.2020 due to the failure to utilize multiple opportunities provided. The High Court confirmed this order, and the Supreme Court upheld it, noting that the petitioner had been given ample chances but failed to act accordingly. The court underscored that no further leniency was warranted given the petitioner’s repeated failures to cross-examine the witness despite the court’s accommodations.

3. Impact of Repeated Adjournments on the Justice Delivery System:
The Supreme Court extensively discussed the detrimental impact of repeated adjournments on the justice delivery system. It cited previous judgments to highlight how such practices corrode the efficacy of the judicial process. The court referenced the case of Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd., where it was observed that adjournments have grown like cancer, corroding the entire body of the justice delivery system. The court also cited Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand and Anr., emphasizing the need for timely justice and how delays can lead to a loss of faith in the judicial system. The court stressed that the judiciary must ensure effective progress on every hearing date and avoid granting adjournments in a routine manner.

The judgment concluded by dismissing the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), noting that the petitioner had misused the liberty and grace shown by the court. The court reiterated the need for a change in the work culture to eliminate the adjournment culture and maintain the trust and confidence of litigants in the justice delivery system.

---