C.Panchavarnam @ Bharathi v. Rajesh

TR.CMP.No.710 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.20142 of 2019 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Routine adjournments or adjournments on flimsy grounds at the instance of the learned counsels cannot be granted by the Courts. Adjournments on genuine grounds can be considered and the reasons are to be recorded by the Courts. Courts cannot contribute for prolongation or protraction of litigation at the instance of the parties concerned. The practice of granting frequent and mechanical adjournments will not only cause inconvenience to the Court proceedings, but the Judicial hours are wasted and the public also loose their confidence on the judiciary. Thus, the Courts are expected to conduct the cases without wasting the judicial hours and by not granting unnecessary adjournments in a casual manner.

2. In the present case, the learned Judge, Family Court, Nagapattinam (FAC), requested extension of time for another three months.

3. This Court is noticing that such requests are made by the judicial officers in many cases. Equally, the High Court also expected to be cautious, while fixing time limit for the disposal of the cases. It may not be humanly possible for a Judge to dispose many number of cases in the event of issuing directions after directions to dispose of the cases. Thus, only on exceptional circumstances and in 1/3

genuine cases, such directions are to be issued to dispose of the case within the time limit and not otherwise. A balanced approach both by the High Court as well as by the Subordinate Court are required in order to improve the efficiency level in disposal of the cases. However, taking note of the reasons stated in Letter D.No.300/2020 dated 17.12.2020, time is extended for another three months as sought for by the Family Court and no further time shall be granted for the disposal of the case.

06.01.2021 Kak 2/3

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Kak TR.CMP.No.710 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.20142 of 2019 06.01.2021 3/3