Litigating Public Enjoys Adjournments, Its Role In Court Delays A Menace Neither Spoken Of Nor Condemned: Allahabad HC

Calling it a 'menace' that is 'neither spoken of nor condemned', the Court opined that this tendency was required to be 'discouraged firmly'.

A bench of Justice JJ Munir called it 'surprising' that despite widespread protests over court delays, litigants, when they appear in court, seek and enjoy adjournments that suit their cause.

“It is surprising that despite such widespread protest against delays in Courts, citizens of the country, in whatever position they are, when they appear in Court as litigants, love to seek time and enjoy adjournments that suits their cause. The contribution of the litigating public to delays in Court, which, in fact, is a menace, is neither spoken of nor condemned. In any case, this tendency has to be discouraged firmly,” the Court remarked in its 1-page order.

These observations were made by the single judge, being dismayed over a Tehsildar's written instructions to the Chief Standing Counsel requesting him to seek some additional time from the court to submit a report.

Essentially, the Court was dealing with a PIL plea, wherein it was alleged that a pond in village Bendui, Post Saren, Pargana Atrauliya, Tehsil Budhanpur, District Azamgarh was encroached by the private respondents nos. 5 to 8.

It was also pointed out that an order of eviction had been passed by the Tehsildar Budhanpur in proceedings under Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, however, the same had not been carried out so far.

On April 10, the Court had called for a report from the Tehsildar over alleged non-compliance with the order for eviction. However, the Tehsildar concerned, through CSC, sought additional time to file the report.

Rejecting the prayer as well as rebuking the litigants in general for seeking adjournments, the Court directed the Tehsildar concerned to file his affidavit within three days or appear in person on April 30, the next date of hearing.

In related news, earlier this year, the same bench of the HC had slammed a litigant (petitioner) who moved the court against the swift proceedings in a case under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

The single judge had termed it as ironic that while social media and public platforms often criticise the judiciary for prolonged court proceedings and frequent adjournments, a member of the same public, when appearing as a litigant, was objecting to swift court proceedings.

Case title - Shailendra Prajapati vs. State Of U.P. And 7 Others

Click Here ToRead/Download Order