Adjournment

Merely filing an adjournment application does not mean that the case will be adjourned.

Adjournment or postponement of the proceedings should be for a definite time and period and not indefinitely.

Three opportunities with warning and imposition of fine were granted but plaintiff failed to produce oral as well as documentary evidence

Trial Court invoked penal provisions of O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C.

When a party was directed to do some act for progress of the proceedings of a suit and that party had failed to comply with the order of court then court had equal power to proceed with the suit forthwith

No reason had been shown as to why on the last two dates of hearing the evidence was not available

Trial Court was competent to pass an order under O.XVII, R.1, C.P.C.

When no sufficient cause was shown for grant of adjournment then court should proceed with the suit forthwith

Trial Court granted sufficient opportunities before invoking the penal provisions of O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C.

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Grant of adjournment was the prerogative of court concerned but it should be for a valid and justified reason duly established before the court and recorded in writing in the order sheet

Law did not permit repeated adjournments on flimsy grounds without there being any application of mind qua the justification for grant of such adjournments

Court of law must be appreciative of the fact that whereas grant of any adjournment would benefit a particular party the same would add to the misery to the other

Court to adopt a proactive role to curb unnecessary adjournments and ordinarily a matter especially rent and/or family should not be repeatedly adjourned and a maximum number of three adjournments and that too after recording the reason thereof in the interim orders should be granted to the parties.

No authorized representative appeared on behalf of appellant/taxpayer despite proper valid service of notice on various dates fixed for hearing

Some one appeared on the last date of hearing who was neither employee of the taxpayer, nor a qualified income tax practitioner

Adjournment request could be made either by a party or his authorized representative personally

Appellate Tribunal observed that addressing the court or moving any application by a stranger/ unauthorized/ incompetent person was not permissible

Appearance before the Tribunal, even for seeking an adjournment, was representation and only the person authorized to appear as such, could seek an adjournment on behalf of the taxpayer

Trainee clerks or clerical staff employed by professionals were not competent to appear in that behalf in the absence of necessary authorization

Seeking adjournment on one pretext or the other, was against the National Judicial Policy, which spoke speedy disposal of the case

Moving applications time and again by the counsel for taxpayer, was tantamount to defeat the ends of speedy and meaningful dispensation of justice

Litigant parties, could not take unnecessary adjournments; they ought to strictly adhere and follow the National Judicial Policy.

In view of word "proceed" with suit on such date or fixed some other date thereafter means the conduct of same proceedings by court on the date fixed by its ministerial officer which was scheduled to be conducted by the court on the date when Presiding Officer was absent, was on leave or otherwise, which means that the date to which case is adjourned under O.XVII, R. 5, C.P.C. is for the same purpose for which the case was fixed by Presiding Officer for the date on which he did not hold the court.

Authorized representative of the taxpayer had filed application for adjournment, as he was busy with preparation and filing of Income Tax Returns of his clients for at that point of time

Such was a sufficient cause for seeking adjournment and generally the departmental officers allowed adjournments liberally during said period

Taxpayer, in the present case, was prevented by "sufficient cause" from producing material and evidence before the Commissioner

Action of First Appellate Authority to refuse to entertain the material and evidence produced before him in respect of withholding of tax was not justified rather it was illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law.

Refusal to allow adjournment for the first time on the ground that it was sought without assigning any reason was patently unreasonable and an improper exercise of discretion by the Assessing Officer.

Commission took a strict view when considering requests for grant of adjournments where those seemed to be more of dialatory tactics leading to an abuse of process of law

Applicant could not ask a date of its own choice as that was asking for too much indulgence which could not be claimed as a matter of right

Counsel for the applicant had not explained as to what complex issues, if any, were involved which would require further time for preparation although it had been acknowledged that it was a serious matter; and that of public importance

Taking into account the counsel's conduct and his earnest assurances that he would henceforth assist the Commission in timely and proper way, matter was adjourned to the date to which the counsel agreed

Counsel had agreed to provide the written reply to the show-cause notice.

Availing of certain adjournments by a party on one pretext or the other would not lead to conclusion that he had nothing to say in his defence.

Adjournment may be granted in exigencies confronting the parties subject to the bona fides of the parties.

Personal engagement of a counsel could not be given preference to his professional duties towards the Court.

Held, in deference to the principle of comity, which was necessary to be observed by the members of the superior judiciary respect had to be shown towards a request for adjournment on the ground of counsel being before the superior Court at the same time and it was only where such a request lacked in bona fides or was made to obstruct the course of justice, such as where counsel or party had already availed of numerous adjournments or the case was an old one and its disposal should not further be delayed, or some similar proper ground was found to exist, that such a request could be refused

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XVII.

Adjournment could only be allowed in aid of justice and not to abuse process of law.

Counsel of parties after informing Reader of Court that compromise talks between parties were going on and appeal should be adjourned, went away and did not appear in Court when appeal was called in

Conduct of counsel of parties having gone away without appearing before the Court was highly undesirable

Case having already been adjourned on number of occasions at the request of parties, no further adjournment was granted, especially because request for adjournment was not made in a proper manner.

Petitioner's Advocate-on Record seeking adjournment due to Counsel's illness while himself unable to argue without giving any valid justification

Interim order having been passed to prejudice of respondent, case adjourned but interim order vacated.

[Adjournment].

O. XVII, r. 1-Adjournment-Appeal being one of oldest and fixed for hearing on a date after due consultation with all concerned and as such not meriting adjournment yet Advocate on Record of respondents having been appointed as Additional Advocate-General and not having taken necessary steps to ensure proper representation on behalf of respondents and important question of law regarding jurisdiction of Pakistan Courts over a foreign Government being also involved, reasonable adjournment, held, required to enable respondents to arrange proper representation.

Read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Adjournment-Telegram sent by Advocate-on-Record praying for adjournment of case on ground that newly appointed Advocate could not appear-Such ground, held, not sufficient reason for granting adjournment and Advocate-on-Record should have engaged counsel in time and such counsel should have put in appearance and not prayed for adjournment without showing sufficient cause for same.-[Adjournment].

O. XVII, r. I-Adjournment-Neither appellant nor his counsel present An Advocate-on-Record stating to have received a telephonic message from counsel asking for adjournment but Advocate-on-Record for appellant absent-Respondent also not present Adjournment disallowed and appeal dismissed for non-prosecution.- [Adjournment].

S. 344-Adjournment-Counsel sending adjournment application through petitioner and asking for date of his own choice-Held, counsel asked for too much indulgence-Such indulgence could not be claimed as a matter of right.

Adjournment -Due to alteration of tour programme of Revenue Officer-Notice put up on Notice Board and information sent to parties to appeal-Default in appearance of appellant Appeal dismissed-Parties' duty to keep themselves in touch with proceedings-Order of dismissal not interfered with in Revision Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), S. 84.

Adjournment-No warrant for proposition ,that at conclusion of evidence a case must 6e adjourned for arguments.