TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, TIRUCHIRAPALLI

Project Submitted for the internal assessment for the

course B.A., LLB(Hons.)- Sixth Semester
Academic Year:2024-25

SUBJECT: CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Adjournment: A critical analysis

Submitted By: Abisaran P (BA0220003)

Submitted To: Mr. A. Nirmal Singh Heera

Asst. Professor of Law, TNNLU

APRIL - 2025
 DECLARATION
I, Abisaran P (BA0220003), hereby declare that this Research paper titled
“Adjournment: A critical analysis ” has been originally carried out by me under the
guidance and supervision of Mr. A. Nirmal Singh Heera, Assistant Professor of
Law, Tamil Nadu National Law University, Tiruchirappalli - 620009. This work
has not been submitted either in whole or in part of any degree/ diploma at any
university.

Place: Tiruchirappalli

Date:
 CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the project work entitled “Adjournment: A critical analysis”
is a bonafide record of the research work done by Abisaran P, under my
supervision and guidance. It has not been submitted by any other University for the
award of any degree, diploma, associateship, fellowship or for any other similar
recognition.

Place: Tiruchirappalli
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction:........................................................................................... 2
Research Objectives:............................................................................ 4
Research questions:.............................................................................. 4
Review of literature:............................................................................. 4
The legal framework:................................................................................5
The problem with adjournment:........................................................... 7
Alternative solutions:........................................................................... 9
Conclusion:.........................................................................................10
Bibliography:................................................................................. 11
 Introduction:
An adjournment is a putting off or rescheduling of a court hearing or trial to a later date. It is a
procedural measure that allows parties in the case or the court to request a temporary break of the
proceedings. Although adjournments may be for legitimate reasons like unforeseen issues or to
ensure a fair hearing, their very frequent and at times unwarranted use has been identified as a
factor for delay in providing justice. While the CPC does not define “adjournment” it does
recognize its existence and give power to the court to grant it in certain situations. With the large
volume of cases before Indian courts, which also has to do with the fact that we have a few
judges and not enough infrastructure, the system is put under great stress. This in turn causes
courts to be overburdened and not be able to go through with cases every day which in turn
causes adjournments. Each session of the court which results from an adjournment adds to the
cost of the legal process, which in turn puts justice unavailable, especially for the economically
backward groups. Also the long interval between sessions of the court which in fact are
adjournments are damaging to the public’s trust in the judiciary. While the issue of speed of trial
is a big concern in criminal cases it is also the same in the cases of civil nature. The 27th Law
Commission report states that “ Although the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
are basically sound, it cannot be gainsaid that in view of the appalling back-log of cases which
has unfortunately become a normal feature of nearly all the courts of the country, the problem of
delay in the law courts has assumed great importance.” Order XVII of the CPC which puts forth
the rules for adjournments grants great power to the courts in the decision to grant them.
Although this power is put in place to cover the specific facts and issues of each case, it has also
been brought to task for creating inconsistency and a lack of predictability. On the other hand it
does allow judges the ability to deal with each case on its own merit thus not sacrificing justice
to rigid rules. The same discretion which brings about flexibility also opens the door to
inconsistency and possible abuse. The lack of clear objective criteria for what is to be adjourned
leaves us with a situation where similar cases are treated differently which in turn breeds
uncertainty and erodes the public’s confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process. If one
court is very lenient with adjourning for minor issues and another very strict with it, parties may
feel that the outcome of their case is more a result of the judge’s personal approach than the merit
of their claim. The move to virtual proceedings has brought new issues to the table such as tech
limitations, connection problems and difficulty in cross examination of witnesses online which
has led to more frequent requests for adjournments. While the pandemic has sped up the
adoption of technology in some areas it has also brought to light the system wide weaknesses
which contribute to the issue of adjournments. In 2023, 25 high courts have more than 61.7 lakh
cases pending while district and subordinate courts have over 4.4 crore cases pending. 1 In the

1
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/over-5-crore-court-cases-pending-government-tells-lok-sabha/ar
ticleshow/106032857.cms
Supreme court, it is recorded that in the last year alone the pending cases amounted to 81,836.
Hence it is necessary to analyze the notion of Adjournment under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
and the paper aims to do the same.

Research Objectives:
-​ To understand the issues of frequent adjournments in Indian civil courts.
-​ To assess the effect of adjournments on the cost and efficiency of civil litigation.
-​ To analyze the scope of the discretion which courts have under Order XVII of the CPC to
grant adjournments.

Research questions:
-​ How do the Indian civil courts pursue adjournment?
-​ What reforms can be adopted to reduce delay and adjournment?
-​ Do adjournments violate the right to speedy trial?

Review of literature:
-​ “A CHALLENGE FOR THE INDIAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM” by Bhavay Malhotra:
The issue of adjournments within the Indian judicial system has emerged as a significant
factor contributing to delays in the administration of justice. As outlined in the paper by
Malhotra, the provision for adjournments, as stated in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
is meant to be utilized only in emergency situations. However, both judicial officers and
advocates frequently misuse this provision, resulting in an inefficient legal process that
leaves innocent parties vulnerable . It explores the complexities of judicial delays,
particularly in relation to adjournments, and highlights the pressing need for reform
within the judicial framework. highlights the specific challenges faced by child victims
within the legal system, where adjournments contribute to procedural inefficiencies that
hinder justice in cases of sexual offenses against minors. The increasing rates of
acquittals, coupled with the difficulties in prosecuting offenders due to these delays,
illustrate a dire need for urgent reform in judicial practices.
-​ “Adjournment Culture : An Executioner of Justice” by Shobhit Rawata: The culture
of adjournments in Indian courts has become a significant impediment to the timely
administration of justice. As highlighted by Rawata, a staggering 4.7 crore cases are
pending in Indian courts, with over 70,000 cases waiting in the Supreme Court alone.
This paper aims to synthesize the current understanding of the adjournment culture, its
implications on the judicial system, and gaps in the literature that require further
exploration. This right is not merely a procedural formality but a fundamental aspect of
justice that ensures that litigants are not left in prolonged uncertainty. The impact of
 adjournments extends beyond mere procedural delays; it affects the psychological
well-being of litigants and can lead to a loss of faith in the judicial system.

The legal framework:

Though the term "adjournment" is not put forth in the Code, the judiciary’s right to grant such is
included in the Code’s procedural functions. Order XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
-​ Rule 1 of Order XVII deals with the power of the Court to adjourn the hearing of a suit. It
states: "The Court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit, grant time to
the parties or any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit for
such time as it thinks fit." This rule grants the court the discretion to adjourn a hearing if
"sufficient cause" is demonstrated. The phrase "sufficient cause" is pivotal, and its
interpretation has been a major point of contention. The rule also empowers the court to
adjourn the hearing "from time to time" and "at any stage of the suit," indicating the
broad nature of this power.

-​ Rule 2 of Order XVII deals with Procedure if parties fail to appear on adjourned day: "If,
on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the parties or any of them fail to
appear, the Court may proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the manners directed in that
behalf by Order IX or make such other order as it thinks fit."

-​ Rule 3 of Order XVII states: "Costs of adjournment: The costs of an adjournment shall be
paid by the party applying for the adjournment, unless the Court otherwise directs.".

The court has a large degree of discretion in granting adjournments. The legislation reports that
courts may put off a case if “sufficient cause” is presented. Also the CPC does not specify what
is to be considered as “sufficient cause” which in turn has led to different courts’ interpretation.
This has been an issue of debate which critics say brings about inconsistency and
unpredictability in the justice process. In most cases courts have determined that “sufficient
cause” is very fact specific. Some common causes which have been accepted as sufficient for
grant of adjournments are:
-​ Absence of material witness
-​ Illness of a party or their counsel
-​ Time required for further investigation or evidence
-​ Non-completion of pleadings
-​ And any other unavoidable circumstances
Adjournments in the legal system fulfill many roles which include to introduce flexibility into
court scheduling and to improve the distribution of judicial resources. Also they provide parties
the adequate time for case preparation which includes gathering of evidence, consultation with
witnesses, and work with legal counsel. Adjournments allow for the production of key witnesses
which is very important to a case and also gives parties the chance to enter into settlement talks
or to look at other dispute resolution options which may be more cost effective. adjournments
function to manage caseload and see to it that the progress of cases is more organized. Also they
are a requirement in the case of national emergencies which may require immediate attention and
also to deal with issues of witness safety in high profile cases. Also at times we may see the need
for adjournments which in turn will allow for better collection of certain evidence or the
acquisition of expert witness statements.

The problem with adjournment:

Order X.VII Rule 3 provides for assessment of costs against the which brought the issue of
adjournment does in fact exist, it is a very weak provision which is not well put into practice.
Also the amounts which are put forward as costs are very low which in turn does not serve as a
deterrence, also parties may see it as more of a convenient option to pay up the costs and get the
issue of adjournment sorted out instead of pushing the proceedings along. Advocates put forward
a number of issues which may or may not be legitimate, including personal convenience, lack of
preparation, tactical delays to put off the proceedings, to wear the opposing party out, ect.
Adjournments are a large part of what causes continuous backlogs in the issue of civil cases in
India. We see that it is the accumulation of adjourned cases which in turn leads to a huge backlog
of cases, with litigants at times waiting out years, and in some cases even decades, for their
issues to be resolved. Shobhit Rawat reports that we have approximately 4.7 Crore cases sitting
in India’s courts, that in his words also include over 70,000 in the Supreme Court and that
lawyers’ use of adjournments is a primary reason for these delays.2 Each adjournment adds to the
financial pressure on the parties involved. Litigants have to put up with the issue of making
repeat court appearances, funding for legal representation and other related expenses. This can
make the whole issue of justice unaffordable for many, which in turn includes the
underprivileged. Also the large scale delays brought about by adjournments does in fact erode
the public’s trust in the judiciary. When people lose faith in the courts’ ability to deliver quick
and effective justice they in turn may go to extra-legal means of dispute resolution which in fact
weakens the rule of law. Vanshika Sirohi also reports that delay in the justice delivery system
breaks down trust in the judicial institutions which in turn leaves litigants disappointed and
justice itself is put at risk.

The Amendment Act, 1999 added proviso to Sub-rule of Order 17 that directs only a maximum
of 3 adjournments to a party during the hearing of a suit.3 In the case of Salem Advocate Bar
Association v. Union of India, the Supreme Court supported the rule’s constitutionality and also
put across that adjournments are not a party’s right but a discretionary relief subject to very strict
terms. Also it was brought to light that courts may allow more than three adjournments in cases

2
Adjournment Culture : An Executioner of Justice, 3.2 JCLJ (2023) 1413
3
Adjournment Culture : An Executioner of Justice, 3.2 JCLJ (2023) 1413
like natural disasters.4 But what we see is that the misuse of adjournments is great. A study of the
Delhi High Court reported that 91% of delayed cases had at least one adjournment and 70% had
more than three. Lawyers put forth false reasons like illness or being out of town, at the same
time judges who are pressed by large caseloads tend to give in to these requests. This practice
which we have broken into three categories: fair hearing adjournments, abuse adjournments, and
system overload shows that many of these delays are not for just cause. Reports by the Law
Commission (1958, 1978, 1979), the Satish Chandra Committee (1986) and the Arrears
Committee (1990) all brought to light the issue of the need to reduce the number of adjournments
in order to improve the delivery of justice. The 230th Law Commission Report (2009) also took
up this issue and called for judges to be on time and lawyers to stop in their tracks what they
term as frivolous delay tactics. Also the economic cost of delays is very large which is reported
to be up to 1.5% of India’s GDP. To that end the Delhi High Court in 2017 launched a “Zero
Pendency Courts” project which looked at performance of trial courts and which also put
forward that adjournments are a main cause of delay. The study also put forth measures such as
use of digital applications for summons, better case listing management, to discourage
adjournments and to impose costs for what is put forth as frivolous delay. Under the Advocates
Act, 1961 penalties are imposed on the advocate for habitual misuse of adjournment provisions.
Justice V.S. Malimath Committee and the Law Commission have put out that the practice of
adjournments is an issue. They put forth that there should be a penalty for those that ask for
improper delays. In Noor Mohammed v. It was reported that the Supreme Court noted the issue
of frequent adjournments’ and also stressed upon the fact that courts must use their discretion
with care.5 In the case of Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd, the Supreme Court once again
brought to fore the issue of adjournments and called upon the courts to play a more active role in
controlling the proceedings which also includes to see that there are no unnecessary delays.6

5
Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand, (2013) 5 SCC 202
6
Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. 2011 9 SCC 678
 Alternative solutions:
In the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, the Supreme Court put
forth that a speedy trial is a basic element of Article 21 as a reasonable, fair and just legal
process. Also the Court reported that it is the State’s constitutional responsibility to put in place a
legal structure which sees to it that trials of accused persons are in a timely manner. The problem
starts with lack of definite rules. Instead of leaving the issue of what constitutes “sufficient
cause” to the full discretion of the judiciary we must put in place more defined and objective
criteria. This may require we see some legislative changes to the CPC or else we see the issuance
of in depth guidelines by the higher judiciary. These criteria should detail what specific
circumstances truly do call for an adjournment like sudden illness, unexpected circumstances.
Courts should present that which is timely and efficient in the recovery of costs put forth for
adjournments. This may include putting a party’s property up or taking out of the award which
goes to the plaintiff in the end. The courts should set strict timelines for many stages of the
litigation process, which includes the filing of papers, the production of documents and the cross
examination of witnesses. These timelines should be very much adhered to and parties should be
punished for any unprovoked delays. Video conferencing which the courts may use does away
with the need for parties, witnesses, and lawyers to travel great distances to appear in court thus
reducing the reason for adjourning due to travel issues or scheduling. Digital tools which the
courts may use to track case progress, manage schedules and to identify what is to become
delays. This in turn will enable judges to step in early and often to prevent what is to grow into
unnecessary adjournments.

The issue of judicial delays is best addressed by the appointment of more judges which in turn
can be made possible by increasing the judicial budget, speeding up the appointment process,
and the setting up of new courts in areas that are underserved. Also we are to look at Alternative
Dispute Resolution methods which include mediation, arbitration and conciliation as ways to
reduce court load. These methods present an opportunity for faster and more affordable
resolution of disputes and if put into wide practice will take some pressure off the judiciary. The
government is doing some work in this area but we also ask for more incentives and better
awareness campaigns to see that ADR is more effective. The public needs to be educated on their
rights and the judicial process which in turn will see less of them going to court for what may be
simple issues, this can be done through awareness campaigns and promotion of legal literacy and
ADR. Justice Mehrotra has put forth a complex solution. In the first instance he stresses upon the
issue of more judges and courts to which is to be added the number of courts. Also he says that a
separate body like the National Judicial Commission or State Judicial Commission should do
ongoing research to determine the structure of the judiciary and that the government has a
responsibility to put in place what is recommended. Also in the area of court and tribunal
administration he calls for the introduction of modern tech which includes computers,
photocopiers, and fax machines and the support of trained staff. This will in turn see the better
working of the system and also see to it that case load is reduced.7

Conclusion:
In summary the issue of adjournments in the Indian civil court system is a complex problem
which requires in depth study and a very far reaching reform. While adjournments are at face
value a feature of Order XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 what is brought out is the
conflict between the need for judicial discretion to deal with the particularities of each case and
the which in turn produces inconsistency and lack of predictability in the decision making
process. Also we see the absence of clear objective criteria for which adjournments are granted
has brought about a situation where similar cases are treated differently, which in turn is a blow
to public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process. Also this issue is made worse by
the large caseload that plagues Indian courts as a result of issues like the low number of judges
and poor infrastructure. In all, the reform of the adjournment practices is key for the Indian
judiciary to put up the structures of the rule of law, to retain public trust and to make sure that
justice is done and seen to be done in a timely and efficient manner. By putting in place a mix of
strict legal standards, modern case management tools, technology solutions and a greater focus
on judicial accountability India can move toward a more effective and equitable justice system
that serves the needs of its people. Flexible court scheduling, in which proper case preparation
goes hand in hand and room for the unforeseen also are do’s of the system but their very rigid
and unstructured use has turned into a system wide issue of the delayed and in efficient delivery
of justice. This practice not only increases the cost of litigation which in turn puts the
economically weak at a great disadvantage but also causes public trust in the judiciary to go
down which in turn forces people to take to extra legal means of dispute resolution.

7
Mehrotra. “JUSTICE DELAYED-SEARCH FOR SOLUTIONS.” J.T.R.I. JOURNAL, no. 4 & 5, Mar. 1996.
 Bibliography:
-​ Mehrotra. “JUSTICE DELAYED-SEARCH FOR SOLUTIONS.” J.T.R.I. JOURNAL,
no. 4 & 5, Mar. 1996.
-​ Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. 2011 9 SCC 678
-​ Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand, (2013) 5 SCC 202
-​ Adjournment Culture : An Executioner of Justice, 3.2 JCLJ (2023) 1413
-​ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/over-5-crore-court-cases-pending-government-t
ells-lok-sabha/articleshow/106032857.cms
-​ Mahant. “Adjournment: Deferring the Trial or Justice to a Future Date?” Jus Corpus Law
Journal, vol. 4, no. 2, Mar. 2023.
-​ Malhotra, Bhavay. “ADJOURNMENT: A CHALLENGE FOR THE INDIAN JUDICIAL
SYSTEM.” Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law, vol. 2, no. 2.
-​ Mahipal, Naresh. A LEGAL STUDY on ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS under SEC.
309 of CR. P. C. International journal of legal research and studies, July 2022.
-​ RICCIO, LUCIUS J. “A MODEL FOR COURT RESOURCE PLANNING.” The Justice
System Journal, vol. 1, no. 2, 1975, pp. 49–64.
-​ Pande, Gauri. "Adjournments in Judiciary; a Relentless Adversity: A Descriptive Study
of the Three Adjournment Rule in Civil Suits." Indian JL & Legal Rsch. 2 (2021): 1.
-​ Sharma, Madhuker. "Adjournment In Litigation and Its Socio-Economic Impact." Artha
Vijnana 61.4 (2019).
-​ Sirohi, Vanshika. "Judicial Delays: A Global Challenge in Delivering Justice." Available
at SSRN 5079448 (2024).