JUDGMENT
R.S. Sodhi, J.
CM.APPL.4066/2006:
1. Allowed subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of.
CM(M)547/2006 & CM.APPL. 4065/2006:
2. This petition seeks to challenge the order dated 21.2.2006 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby the learned Judge has declined to waive costs imposed vide order dated 19.01.2006 and further has also closed plaintiff’s evidence.
3. It appears that vide order dated 19.01.2006 costs were imposed while granting the adjournment. Instead of complying with the order of deposit of costs on the next date an application was moved for waiver of the costs. The explanation in the application did not find favor with the Additional District Judge who dismissed the same.
4. On 21.2.2006 when the case was called out a proxy counsel appeared and sought pass-over. Subsequently, during the course of the day when the matter was again called an application for adjournment was moved stating that counsel is sick. The trial court was not impressed with the excuse and rejected the adjournment. The authorized representative of the petitioner had no authority to appear and defend the petitioner while the proxy counsel claimed himself to be present but his presence could not be recognized since the lawyers were on strike and instructions had been given not to adjourn cases on this ground.
5. PW-1 whose evidence by way of affidavit had been placed on record was not cross-examined in spite of opportunity given. The plaintiff thereafter did not wish to lead any further evidence and plaintiff’s evidence was closed. The matter was then fixed for defendant’s evidence.
6. Counsel for the petitioner contends that due to lawyers’ strike it was not possible for him to appear and that the proxy counsel was not prepared with the case since the application for waiving of costs was required to be decided first. He also submits that the litigation should not suffer because of fault of counsel.
7. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the petition filed by him. From a reading of the petition itself it is evident that this case has been adjourned by the trial court on various occasions. The matter could not proceed due to one excuse or the other. Lawyers’ strike being the latest subterfuge.
8. Lately, it has been noticed by this Court that there is a great tendency to drag proceedings by filing frivolous applications and/or seeking adjournment on grounds of non-availability of counsel as also misusing the courtesy extended to counsel by courts of passing-over matters when called out. Another ground ordinarily pressed into service is that counsel is busy in a higher court. The sum total is that cases drag on from year to year and each adjournment adds to arrears. The back-log increases to the extent that the daily board becomes unmanageable. Even in this Court six to seven cases every day are filed for condoning defaults. Each time a petition for condoning default is brought before the High Court it takes on an average six hearings for it to be disposed of while the case in the trial court comes to a standstill. All this is done in the name of justice to the litigant in spite of default of lawyers.
9. In the present case, instead of proceeding with the matter after default was condoned on costs imposed, an application was moved for waiving of costs, obviously, only to delay proceedings. Having carefully considered the facts of this case, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice demand a speedy trial which cannot be allowed to be defeated by the so-called tricks of trade. Courts must firmly put down the practice of frivolous adjournments and move ahead with cases so that the same are disposed of as quickly as possible. This of course does not mean that no adjournment will be granted but adjournments should be granted only in exceptional cases by adopting a more rational approach. This is the only method of managing workload and disposing of cases in shorter duration.
10. Without further elaborating on causes of delay in Justice Delivery System, suffice it to say, that the Bar must be more conscious of their duties towards the litigants and the justice delivering system.
11. In the present case, I find no ground to interfere in the order under challenge. CM(M)547/2006 & CM.APPL.4065/2006 are dismissed.