Ghisa Ram vs Balbir Singh

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—This appeal came up for hearing on 18.10.2011 and at the request of counsel for the appellant, was adjourned to

20.12.2011, on which date, it was adjourned to 30.3.2012. On 30.3.2013, no one appeared for the appellant in spite of pass over given and

appeal was adjourned to 24.7.2012. The order dated 30.3.2012 reads thus:-

None is appearing for the appellant in spite of pass over.

In the interest of justice, adjourned to 24.07.2012.

Last opportunity.

Thereafter, again a request for adjournment was made on 24.7.2012 and this Court passed following order:--

On request made on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant, adjourned to 10.10.2012.

No further adjournment shall be granted.

At this stage, orders dated 10.10.2012 and 22.2.2013 be also noticed, as under:--

Order dated 10.10.2012:

In spite of second last opportunity with stipulation that no further adjournment shall -be granted, counsel for the appellant prays for another

adjournment as the arguing counsel presently is not available. The case was also called earlier today and was passed over on request of proxy

counsel for the appellant, but in spite of pass over also, counsel for the appellant has not turned up to argue the case, which is hanging over for

preliminary hearing.

In the interest of justice, another opportunity is granted subject to deposit of Rs. 1,000/- as costs with the Registry of this Court.

Adjourned to 22.02.2012.

Last and final opportunity.

No further adjournment shall be granted.

Order dated 22.2.2013:

Learned counsel undertakes to comply with the order dated 10.10.2012 within three days from today. Costs be remitted to High Court Legal

Services Authority.

To come up on 22.5.2013.

Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 6.8.2013 by order of the Court. On 6.8.2013, this Court passed the following order:--

Order dated 10.10.2012 has not been complied with till date.

Counsel for the appellant states that due to some lapse on the part of his office, needful could not be done. However, he regrets the lapse and

seeks two days time to do the needful.

Let the order dated 10.10.2012 be complied with within two days from today.

List on 19.08.2013.

To be shown in the urgent list.

Today again,, a written request for adjournment has been made citing personal difficulty of the lawyer. However, Shri Manoj Tanwar, Advocate

has requested for adjournment stating that arguing counsel for the appellant is busy in two regular DBs.

At this stage, provisions of Order XVII Rule 1(2)(c) CPC be perused which read thus:--

ORDER XVII

Adjournments

1(1) xx xxx xx xxx xx xxx xx xxx xx xxx xx xxx xx

(2) xx xxx xx xxx xx xxx xx xxx xx xxx xx xxx xx

(a) xx xxx xx xxx xx xxx xx xxx xx xxx xx xxx xx

(b) xx xxx xx xxx xx xxx xx xxx xx xxx xx xxx xx

(c) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment.

Thus, there is hardly a ground for adjournment. It was for the appellant to make arrangements for arguments of the appeal, as it was made clear

on the last date that the case will be shown in the Urgent List.

Thus, there is no reason to accept the prayer for adjournment and the same is declined. At this stage, it is also useful to refer to the observations

of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Poonam Vs. Sumit Tanwar, which read thus:--

In absence of proper assistance to Court by the lawyer, there is no obligation on the part of the Court to decide the case, for the simple reason that

unless the lawyer renders the proper assistance to the Court, the Court is not able to decide the case. It is not for the Court itself to decide the

controversy. The counsel cannot just raise the issues in his petition and leave it to the Court to give its decision on those points after going through

the record and determining the correctness thereof. It is not for the Court itself to find out what the points for determination can be and then

proceed to give a decision on those points. In case counsel for the party is not able to render any assistance, the Court may decline to entertain the

petition.

Dismissed.