Adjournments/ Passovers and Alleged Illness of the Advocate

*Adjournments/ Passovers in Courts and Alleged Illness of the Advocate : Denial of Adjournment and Imposition of Costs Justified*

In a superbly reasoned Judgment, it was observed that from submissions advanced, it appears that the learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff is under mistaken impression that pass overs are matter of right of the counsel. That is not so. *Adjournments and pass over are courtesies extended by the court to accommodate the counsel. But that cannot be allowed to make the opposite side suffer. It is for the counsel to maintain their diary so that the other side may not suffer.*

As regards the adjournment request also, it would be significant to note that first the adjournment on that day was sought on the ground of illness of the main counsel, *but on being called upon to submit medical documents, the proxy counsel who sought adjournment stated that due to some family exigency, main counsel was not available*. To say the least, such falsehood coming from a counsel before Court is deprecated.

In the light of Section 35B of Code, 1908 it was held that the learned trial court could have completely prohibited the petitioner/plaintiff from participating in the further proceedings of the suit.

Ultimately, cost of Rs. 5000/- was imposed for seeking adjournment because main counsel was not present and the petition challenging such order was also dismissed with further costs of Rs. 10000/-.

Case reference is M/S EC CONSTRUCTIONS P LTD v NEERAJ ZUTSHI AND ANR [2025] GCtR 1720 (Delhi).

Full text copy of judgment is available free of cost at the link given below : - 

https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/60817112025CMM16832025_174616.pdf