High Time To End Perception That Civil Cases Can Run For Decades: Delhi High Court
“It is high time that paradigm be changed by courts and an impression across the society be dispelled that civil suits can be allowed to run for decades,” the Delhi High Court said on Wednesday.The remarks were made by Justice Girish Kathpalia while strongly criticising a litigant's “deliberate design” to protract trial court proceedings in a suit for recovery of loan amount, by...
“It is high time that paradigm be changed by courts and an impression across the society be dispelled that civil suits can be allowed to run for decades,” the Delhi High Court said on Wednesday.
The remarks were made by Justice Girish Kathpalia while strongly criticising a litigant's “deliberate design” to protract trial court proceedings in a suit for recovery of loan amount, by taking about 11 adjournments.
The Petitioner (original defendant) had approached the High Court against the trial court's refusal to recall the Plaintiff (Respondent here) for cross-examination under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC.
Significant to note that Petitioner's right to cross-examine the Respondent was closed by the trial court following multiple adjournments.
As per trial court record, adjournment was sought on 20.11.2024, which was allowed. Thereafter, on 21.02.2025 he did not appear (on account of lawyers' strike) and matter was adjourned to 15.05.2025.
“...Strike by lawyers is not a justified ground for defaults. The courts are never on strike,” the High Court said in this regard.
Respondent submitted that even prior to 20.11.2024, the Petitioner took a number of adjournments on “frivolous grounds”.
Further significant to note that Petitioner claimed that on 15.05.2025, proxy counsel appeared in the matter. However, the High Court noted that as per trial court record, none appeared on behalf of the Petitioner on that day.
It said,
“The judicial record is sacrosanct. If proceedings are not correctly recorded in the ordersheet, the party concerned must immediately move the same court for rectification, failing which the party concerned cannot be allowed later to challenge correctness of the contents of ordersheet.”
The Court further noted that even cost imposed on the Petitioner by the trial court was not paid, despite lapse of 08 months, and this was perhaps the reason for non-appearance on 15.05.2025.
…“in terms of Section 35B of Code of Civil Procedure, the consequence of failure to pay costs is that the defaulting party has to be stopped from participating further in the proceedings. That being so, closure of right to cross-examine PW1 on 15.05.2025 was completely justified.” the High Court said.
It added,
“The above conspectus amply shows the blatant and deliberate design on the part of petitioner/defendant to continue to protract the trial court proceedings, which is with the obvious aim to frustrate the respondent/plaintiff into giving up the lis…It is high time that paradigm be changed by courts and an impression across the society be dispelled that civil suits can be allowed to run for decades.”
As such, the plea was dismissed.
Appearance: Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Deepak Mittal, Advocate for Respondent
Case title: Sohn Singh v. Dildar Singh
Case no.: CM(M) 1998/2025