The Delhi High Court imposed costs on an advocate who sought an adjournment without informing the counsel for the opposite party. The Court said the practice causes avoidable inconvenience and has no justification.
Justice Anish Dayal passed the order while hearing a petition under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in Om Prakash Malhotra & Anr. v. Sachin Malhotra. The petition sought a review of an order passed in July 2024, which had dismissed the defendants’ application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
On January 28, counsel appearing for the respondent requested an adjournment. Counsel for the petitioners opposed the request. They pointed out that the respondent had also sought adjournments on the previous two hearing dates.
A proxy counsel appeared for the respondent and told the Court that the main counsel had to travel outside Delhi to attend another matter in a different State. However, the Court noted that the respondent’s side gave no prior intimation to the petitioners’ counsel about the adjournment request, even on the morning of the hearing.
Justice Dayal strongly criticised the practice of seeking adjournments without notifying the opposite side. The Court observed:
“This manner of not informing the counsel of the opposite side is strongly deprecated by the Court, since it causes inconvenience to the other side’s counsel for no reason whatsoever.”
In view of the conduct, the High Court directed the respondent’s counsel to pay costs of ₹15,000 to the petitioners’ counsel within two weeks.
