1. What is Adjournment in Court Proceedings?
Adjournment refers to the postponement or suspension of a court hearing or proceeding to a later date. This can happen in civil, criminal, or other types of legal cases. Adjournments are governed by specific provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for civil cases and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and/or BNSS (Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) for criminal cases.
An adjournment may be granted by the court if sufficient cause is shown by either party, such as the illness of a party or counsel, absence of a witness, or other unavoidable circumstances.
2. Adjournment in Civil cases – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
In civil litigation adjournment is governed primarily by Order XVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
2.1 Order XVII Rule 1 CPC – Adjournment
THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 Order XVII ADJOURNMENT 1. Court may grant time and adjourn hearing. - (1) The Court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the suit.] [Substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999, Section 26, for sub-rule (1)(w.e.f. 1.7.2002).] (2) Costs of adjournment.-In every such case the Court shall fix a day for the further hearing of the suit, and [shall make such order as to costs occasioned by the adjournment or such higher costs as the court deems fit]: [Provided that,- (a) When the hearing of the suit has commenced, it shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds that, for the exceptional reasons to be recorded by it, the adjournment of the hearing beyond the following day is necessary. (b) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party. (c) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment. (d) where the illness of a pleader or his inability to conduct the case for any reason, other than his being engaged in another Court, is put forward as a ground for adjournment, the Court shall not grant the adjournment unless it is satisfied that the party applying for adjournment could not have engaged another pleader in time. (e) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his pleader is not present or the party or his pleader, though present in Court, is not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness, the Court may, if it thinks fit, record the statement of the witness and pass such orders as it thinks fit dispensing with the examination-in-chief or cross-examination of the witness, as the case may be, by the party or his pleader not present or not ready as aforesaid.]
3. Adjournment in Criminal Cases – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
In criminal cases adjournment is governed primarily by Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and/or Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
3.1 Section 309 CrPC – Power to Postpone or Adjourn Proceedings
Section 309 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.-
[(1) In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded:
Provided that when the inquiry or trial relates to an offence under section 376, [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code, the inquiry or trial shall] [Substituted by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 ] be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the charge sheet.]
(2) If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody :
Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time :
Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing :
[Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him.] [Inserted by Act 45 of 1978, Section 24 (w.e.f. 18-12-1978).]
[Provided also that-
(a) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party;
(b) the fact that the ple3ader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment;
(c) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his pleader is not present or the party or his pleader though present in Court, is not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness, the Court may, if thinks fit, record the statement of the witness and pass such orders as it thinks fit dispensing with the examination-in-chief or cross-examination of the witness, as the case may be.]
Explanation 1. - If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand.
Explanation 2. - The terms on which an adjournment or postponement may be granted include, in appropriate cases, the payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused.
[Inserted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (5 of 2009), Section 21 (b).]
3.2 Section 346 BNSS – Power to Postpone or Adjourn Proceedings
Section 346 in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
346. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.
(1) In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be continued from day-to-day basis until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded:
Provided that when the inquiry or trial relates to an offence under section 64, section 65, section 66, section 67, section 68, section 70 or section 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 the inquiry or trial shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the chargesheet.
(2) If the Court, after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody:
Provided that no Court shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time:
Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him:
Provided also that-
(a) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party;
(b) where the circumstances are beyond the control of a party, not more than two adjournments may be granted by the Court after hearing the objections of the other party and for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
(c) the fact that the advocate of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment;
(d) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his advocate is not present or the party or his advocate though present in Court, is not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness, the Court may, if thinks fit, record the statement of the witness and pass such orders as it thinks fit dispensing with the examination-in-chief or cross-examination of the witness, as the case may be.
Explanation 1.-If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand.
Explanation 2.-The terms on which an adjournment or postponement may be granted include, in appropriate cases, the payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused.
[Similar to Section 309 from Old CrPC-Also Refer]
4. Misuse of Adjournments in Court Proceedings
Adjournments are meant to serve the interests of justice by allowing fair time for preparation. But they are often misused in Court proceedings, leading to chronic delays and denial of timely justice.
To discourage unnecessary delays, the 2002 amendment to the CPC introduced a limit on adjournments — each party is generally permitted a maximum of three adjournments during the hearing of a suit. Courts are also required to record reasons in writing for granting adjournments. Moreover, costs may be imposed on the party seeking the adjournment to compensate the other side for the delay. Nonetheless, courts retain discretion to grant additional adjournments in exceptional circumstances, in the interest of justice.
However, despite procedural safeguards under Order XVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), adjournments are sometimes frequently sought on flimsy or fabricated grounds, such as intentional absence of parties or lawyers, citing sudden illness, unavailability of witnesses, or filing incomplete documents. In many instances, adjournments are used as a strategic tool to frustrate or financially burden the opposing party, particularly in civil disputes or matrimonial cases. Courts, burdened by excessive caseloads and administrative challenges, sometimes grant adjournments too liberally without strict scrutiny or imposition of costs.
5. Supreme Court Judgments – Misuse of Adjournments
The Supreme Court in its several rulings has emphasized the need for strict judicial control over adjournments so as to ensure speedy trials and discourage adjournments except in compelling situations.
5.1 Delay in justice is lethal to fair trial: Justice Krishna Iyer
In the case of Babu Singh v. State of U.P. (1978) 1 SCC 579 the Supreme Court (Justice Krishna Iyer) observed as under:
“4. … Our justice system, even in grave cases, suffers from slow motion syndrome which is lethal to ‘fair trial’, whatever the ultimate decision. Speedy justice is a component of social justice since the community, as a whole, is concerned in the criminal being condignly and finally punished within a reasonable time and the innocent being absolved from the inordinate ordeal of criminal proceedings.”
5.2 Adjournment only on Justifiable Cause
In M/s Shiv Cotex vs Tirgun Auto Plast P.Ltd.& Ors 2011 (9) SCC 678 the Supreme Court held-
"No litigant has a right to abuse the procedure provided in the CPC. Adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system. It is true that cap on adjournments to a party during the hearing of the suit provided in proviso to Order XVII Rule 1 CPC is not mandatory and in a suitable case, on justifiable cause, the court may grant more than three adjournments to a party for its evidence but ordinarily the cap provided in the proviso to Order XVII Rule 1 CPC should be maintained. When we say 'justifiable cause' what we mean to say is, a cause which is not only 'sufficient cause' as contemplated in sub-rule (1) of Order XVII CPC but a cause which makes the request for adjournment by a party during the hearing of the suit beyond three adjournments unavoidable and sort of a compelling necessity like sudden illness of the litigant or the witness or the lawyer; death in the family of any one of them; natural calamity like floods, earthquake, etc. in the area where any of these persons reside; an accident involving the litigant or the witness or the lawyer on way to the court and such like cause.
The list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the absence of the lawyer or his non-availability because of professional work in other court or elsewhere or on the ground of strike call or the change of a lawyer or the continuous illness of the lawyer (the party whom he represents must then make alternative arrangement well in advance) or similar grounds will not justify more than three adjournments to a party during the hearing of the suit. The past conduct of a party in the conduct of the proceedings is an important circumstance which the courts must keep in view whenever a request for adjournment is made. A party to the suit is not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure and pleasure and has no right to determine when the evidence would be let in by it or the matter should be heard. The parties to a suit - whether plaintiff or defendant - must cooperate with the court in ensuring the effective work on the date of hearing for which the matter has been fixed. If they don't, they do so at their own peril."
5.3 Repeated Adjournments are against Law and Professional Ethics
In Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal, (2021) 12 SCC 612 the Supreme Court observed-
"Although the adequate liberty was given to the defendant to cross examine the plaintiff’s witness, they never availed of the same and went on delaying the proceedings by repeated prayers of adjournment and unfortunately the Trial Court and even subsequently the High Court continued to grant adjournment after adjournment and as such contributed the delay in disposal of the suit which as such was for eviction. Such approach is wholly condemnable. Law and professional ethics do not permit such practice. Repeated adjournments on one or the other pretext and adopting the dilatory tactics is an insult to justice and concept of speedy disposal of cases. Petitioner – defendant acted in a manner to cause colossal insult to justice and to concept of speedy disposal of civil litigation."
The Supreme Court further observed-
Today the judiciary and the justice delivery system is facing acute problem of delay which ultimately affects the right of the litigant to access to justice and the speedy trial. Arrears are mounting because of such delay and dilatory tactics and asking repeated adjournments by the advocates and mechanically and in routine manner granted by the courts. It cannot be disputed that due to delay in access to justice and not getting the timely justice it may shaken the trust and confidence of the litigants in the justice delivery system. Many a times, the task of adjournments is used to kill justice. Repeated adjournments break the back of the litigants. The courts are enjoying upon to perform their duties with the object of strengthening the confidence of common man in the institution entrusted with the administration of the justice. Any effort which weakens the system and shake the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation has to be discouraged. Therefore the courts shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. The courts have to be diligence and take timely action in order to usher in efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law. We are also aware that whenever the trial courts refused to grant unnecessary adjournments many a times they are accused of being strict and they may face displeasure of the Bar. However, the judicial officers shall not worry about that if his conscience is clear and the judicial officer has to bear in mind his duties to the litigants who are before the courts and who have come for justice and for whom Courts are meant and all efforts shall be made by the courts to provide timely justice to the litigants.
5.4 Repeated Adjournments have a Corrosive Effect
In Noor Mohammed vs Jethanand and Anr. (2013) 5 SCC 202 the Supreme Court condemned the repeated adjournments sought by lawyers and granted by the courts-
"The proceedings in the second appeal before the High Court, if we allow ourselves to say so, epitomises the corrosive effect that adjournments can have on a litigation and how a lis can get entangled in the tentacles of an octopus. The philosophy of justice, the role of a lawyer and the court, the obligation of a litigant and all legislative commands, the nobility of the Bench and the Bar, the ability and efficiency of all concerned and ultimately the divinity of law are likely to make way for apathy and indifference when delay of the present nature takes place, for procrastination on the part of anyone destroys the values of life and creates a catastrophic turbulence in the sanctity of law. The virtues of adjudication cannot be allowed to be paralysed by adjournments and non-demonstration of due diligence to deal with the matter."
6. Conclusion
Adjournments are a procedural tool intended to ensure fairness by allowing parties adequate time to prepare or respond. However, frequent and unncessary adjournments not only lead to undue delays but also erodes people’s faith and confidence in the judicial system. The judiciary has recognized this issue in various rulings and emphasized strict compliance with procedural rules. Nonetheless, enforcement remains inconsistent. To curb the misuse, stricter judicial discipline, imposition of costs for frivolous adjournments, and better case management practices are essential for restoring efficiency and trust in the judicial process.