MADHOWPRASAD RAMGOPAL Vs. AJUDYAPRASAD NARANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS suit No. 318 of 1900 is placed on my Board to-day and is sixth on the list. Mr. Raikes for the plaintiffs and Mr. Inverarity for the defendants move by consent of parties for an adjournment of the hearing. THIS I decline to grant. I have often heard it said that it is the business of the parties to decide when their suit shall be heard and that when parties agree to have it postponed all that the Judge has to do is to take up his pen and write the order. THIS is an absolutely false notion and ought to have no place in the minds of any one who has a correct notion of the duties of a Judge. The plaintiff after he files his suit ought to be ready to go on with it within a period of time reasonably necessary for the preparation of his case, and the defendant is bound to be expeditious in the preparation of his defence, and be ready within the time reasonably necessary to defend the suit. No doubt the Court is bound to and will at all times consider the convenience of the parties and any contingency which may necessitate a postponement of the hearing. But to regulate its own procedure is entirely the business of the Court. [ His lordship went into the facts of the case and ultimately refused the adjournment].