A Delhi district court imposed costs of ₹30,000 on a defendant for seeking a last-minute adjournment in a time-bound matter despite specific directions from the Delhi High Court for expeditious consideration of pending applications.

District Judge Dharmender Rana was hearing a civil suit in which the Delhi High Court had, through an order dated May 12, 2026, directed the trial court to decide applications under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and Order VII Rule 11 CPC. When the matter was taken up, none appeared on behalf of the defendant despite the High Court’s explicit directions.

The Court initially waited for the defendant. Later, while noting a lawyers’ strike notification, the judge recorded that the Bar President had appeared in another matter and informed the court that members of the bar were functioning normally at Patiala House Courts and were not supporting the strike. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45, reiterating that lawyers’ strikes are illegal and unethical.

At the stage when the court was dictating its order, a proxy counsel for the defendant appeared virtually and sought a short adjournment. The plaintiff strongly opposed the plea, arguing that the matter was time-bound and that the defendant only surfaced when an adverse order appeared imminent.

Without commenting on the defendant’s conduct in detail, the Court adjourned the matter subject to payment of ₹30,000 as additional costs to be deposited with the Lawyers Welfare Fund, New Delhi District.

The matter has now been listed for arguments on May 30, 2026, with the court making it clear that no adjournment should be sought on the next date under any circumstances.

Appearances:

Sh. Bharat Ahuja, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff