In a writ petition dismissed, the Court refused an adjournment request citing屡次 delays. It held that the petition lacked sustainable cause of action and had lingered for six years.
Original writ petition dismissed; adjournment request rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~77
versus
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 07.10.2024
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. Ms. Sarika Yadav, learned Counsel, seeks an adjournment on the ground of non-availability of learned Counsel for the petitioners.
2. We are unwilling to accommodate the request for two reasons.
3. The first is that the petitioners have repeatedly been taking adjournments for the past several dates. On 19 May 2023, the matter had to be adjourned because the Counsel for the petitioners was not available when it was called out. Thereafter, on 16 November 2023, again there was no appearance for the petitioners. On 15 May 2024, the matter was adjourned at the request of learned Counsel for the petitioners. On 3 October 2024, there was again no appearance on behalf of the petitioners. On 4 October 2024, again a pass-over was sought, which was not possible and it was specifically directed that the matter would be placed in the Supplementary List today and would be
Signature Not Ver ified W.P.(C) 5663/2017 Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 09.1 0.2024 15:07:36
Page 1 of 2
taken up at first call. Today, again an adjournment is sought on the ground that the petitioners is unwell/not available.
4. This Court cannot continuously adjourn matters ad nauseam .
5. The second reason why we are not inclined to grant the request is because the order under challenge in the present petition merely directs the petitioners to scrutinise the medical bill of the respondent keeping in view the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment in Suman Rakheja v State of Haryana1 and, in case any amount is found due to him, to pay the said amount within ninety days. The matter has been left to the discretion of the petitioners. We, in fact, are perplexed at why the petitioners have even chosen to file the present petition and even more perplexed at the fact that it has lingered in this Court for six years.
6. We are not willing to allow this petition to linger on any further.
7. Clearly, there is no sustainable cause of action for the petitioners to maintain this petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.
OCTOBER 7, 2024/j
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
1 ( 2004) 13 SSC 562
Signature Not Ver ified W.P.(C) 5663/2017 Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 09.1 0.2024 15:07:36
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant an adjournment due to non-availability of counsel for successive reasoned grounds.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Suman Rakheja v State of HaryanaReferred¶19
(2004) 13 SSC 562
Union of India
Mahesh Kumar Bharti
C. Hari Shankar
Sudhir Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
