RAM SINGH Vs. SHASHI PARKASH PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN adjournment slip has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellants by stating the following: -

(2.) NO one has caused appearance for the appellants. This is insufficient reason which is neither found fair nor proper in an appeal pending motion hearing since the year 2010 in which notice to the respondents is yet to be considered after hearing arguments. Instead of an adjournment slip on a limp reason apparently aimed to buy further time an appropriate application should have been filed explaining reasons for summoning lower court record when it was not so done or asked for 5 long years. In any case certified copies of the court file record could have been shown to the Court. There is an old game played of trying to summon LCR to stymie execution proceedings which is common knowledge to both the Bench and the Bar. As the old saying goes nothing succeeds like success.

(3.) BUT the precious time of this Court cannot be squandered or reduced to a farce by keeping afloat the appeal for 5 years without just cause or reasonable justification. Seeking adjournments after adjournments is not a good thing and presently by an adjournment slip is even worse by not appearing before the court which is highly improper and shows complete disrespect to the Court. The Court does not demand but expects grace and common courtesy for parties to ensure appearance of the learned counsel and to press such a prayer in dire necessity by counsel engaged, or by asking a colleague to do put in appearance when the case is called to make a request. An adjournment has not been sought today by reason of nonavailability of the learned counsel for a valid cause or that he is in personal difficulty which disables him to put in appearance. No further accommodation is called for in the matter. This conduct either shows that there is nothing in the appeal or the appellant is no longer interested in pursuing the case. Five years having gone by the respondents must have settled down without fear of further litigation. It is too late to even consider disturbing the stasis. I, however, refrain from dismissing the appeal on this score alone today. But if a recall application is filed, this Court would not be precluded from dismissing the application and the main appeal at the threshold for the reasons already stated above unless extraordinary reasons exist but which do not touch upon the merits of the case. The stage of merits I think is long over to be considered. The High Court is not a conveyor belt of regular second appeals shunted from the Courtroom to the storehouse for listing and relisting at the asking of slumbering litigants waking up to seek unnecessary adjournments, then dozing off again as though a game of chess is being played out in Court with the players missing. Enough is enough. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed in default of appearance and for non -prosecution of the appeal for an inordinately long period.