DHORAJI NAGARPALIKA Vs. ARIF ISMAIL GODIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Civil Revision Application against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (JD) at Dhoraji at Exh. 185 in RCS No. 254 of 1985 insofar as it granted adjournment only on imposing condition of costs, no serious challenge is raised before this Court. To that extent the order is upheld and C.R.A. stands rejected.

(2.) It is not necessary to hear the other side while considering the second request made to this Court. It is a matter between this Court and the serious remarks made by the learned Judge in his order against practising advocate at Dhoraji. The observations made which are stated herein in extenso are undoubtedly directed against the senior advocate and various practices allegedly adopted by the senior advocate for delaying the proceedings of every suit. The learned judge has made reference to the practice being constantly followed by the senior advocate and has passed certain strictures or adverse remarks against the conduct of the senior advocate which are reproduced hereunder : <IMG>JUDGEMENT_515_GLR2_1996Image1.jpg</IMG> <IMG>JUDGEMENT_515_GLR2_1996Image2.jpg</IMG> It is true that the learned Judge is agitated at the request for adjournment being repeated time and again and since there are administrative instructions issued by this Court on its administrative side to dispose of old civil suits on priority basis, he felt much agitated at the manner in which the adjournments were sought and the way in which the Court proceedings were conducted by the senior advocate. Much deserves to be said against the practice followed by advocates adopting various devices, tactics and methods of delaying hearing and conduct of civil proceedings. More than decade old civil suits are pending in trial Courts and position is still alarming in cases of highly contested suits. This Court has heavily come down upon the requests for adjournments made by the senior Advocates/junior Advocates in every proceeding. Every civil proceeding is merrily carried on in the trial Court for a long period. The party in whose favour the order of interim injunction operates, prolong the hearing of suit, and the Advocates extend helping hand. They unknowingly turn themselves into a class of hired agents who have expertised in procrastination of judicial trials. A few of them are even proud of their performance. A matter of sheer shame on one time noble profession is now understood to be a matter of achievement. Ultimately, blame is laid at the Courts of judiciary. The poor helpless litigants physically, mentally and financially get totally exhausted and at times by the time proceedings get finally disposed of what is passed on to the heirs is burden of most tiresome and cumbersome litigation. Who greatly and immensely contribute to this sorry state of affairs is the serious question posed to the entire system but fact remains that justice delayed is justice denied. Are persons manning the judiciary solely responsible? An emphatic and positive answer is "no". If not more, more than equal contribution is by the lawyers.

(3.) The learned trial Judge could duly and politely express his displeasure against requests of adjournments, but it appears that intentionally he has hurt the feelings of the senior advocate by passing adverse remarks/strictures which the learned trial judge could have modestly avoided. Had he avoided passing such remarks the matter would not have come to such a stage. It appears that the threat of transfer, threat of applying to the District Court for transfer of cases from the file of the learned trial judge while seeking adjournment has further agitated the trial Judge. Perhaps, simple request for adjournment would not have provoked the trial Court to pass such strictures against practising advocate.