ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed regret over the persistent menace of delays and frequent adjournments in civil trials, observing that such practices not only contribute to mounting backlogs, but also erode the efficiency and credibility of the justice system.

“The timely resolution of civil disputes is not merely a statutory entitlement of litigants but also an indispensable attribute of an effective judicial process,” observed Justice Shakeel Ahmad while upholding the Lahore High Court’s (LHC) May 21 rejection of a plea moved by petitioner Irfan Rasheed.

In an 11-page order, Justice Ahmad noted that academic literature also identifies frequent and unnecessary adjournments as a major cause of delay, resulting in financial and emotional strain on litigants, erosion of public trust in the judiciary, and frustration of the right to timely justice.

The controversy stemmed from the purchase of land measuring 25 kanals by Irfan Rasheed for a consideration of Rs9,000,000, of which Rs3.9 million was paid as earnest money on June 5, 2018. A written agreement was executed, and the property to that extent was transferred in the petitioner’s name.

Unnecessary adjournments erode public trust in judiciary, Justice Shakeel Ahmad observes

Subsequently, the respondents declined to perform the remaining obligations. The petitioner instituted a suit against the respondents wherein an interim injunction was granted. In parallel, the respondents filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of the agreement, which was decreed in their favour on July 18, 2019.

Thereafter, the petitioner invoked the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking annulment of the judgment and decree, alleging fraud and misrepresentation, and contending that the order and decree were obtained in connivance with other respondents.

The respondents contested the application through their written reply, while the trial court, on Jan 29, dismissed the application by invoking the provisions of Order XVII Rule 3 CPC. The appellate court upheld the dismissal on April 12. The constitutional petition before the LHC met the same fate, being dismissed in limine.

Citing the 2015 Rana Tanveer Khan case, Justice Ahmad recalled that the Supreme Court had emphatically stressed the need for expeditious trials and held that only “reasonable adjournments” should be granted, while delaying tactics of litigants must be firmly discouraged.

Likewise, in the 2020 Moon Enterprises case, the apex court underscored the need for stricter enforcement by trial courts, placing particular emphasis on issuing clear warnings regarding the consequences of non-production of evidence within the timeframe fixed by the court, including the closure of evidence.

Furthermore, in the 1976 Settlement Authority case, the Supreme Court observed that adjournments sought by proxy counsel, particularly in the absence of the party or principal counsel, were generally disfavoured.

All the above-cited precedents, Justice Ahmad noted, underscore the importance of active and diligent participation by litigants in judicial proceedings. Repeated adjournments for producing evidence defeat the very object of Rule 3 of the CPC.

Justice Ahmad clarified that once sufficient opportunities have been granted, the right to produce evidence stands closed, and the court must proceed to decide the case on the available record.

In the 1986 Gul Hassan case, the Supreme Court held that where a party consistently fails to produce evidence despite availing multiple adjournments, such delays are impermissible and justify dismissal of the case. The purpose, the judge said, is to curb procrastination in judicial proceedings and to ensure that a party who fails to discharge its burden does not prolong litigation indefinitely.

Justice Ahmad emphasised that every litigant is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to present their case, but such entitlement cannot be construed as a licence for endless adjournments or repeated indulgence.

Published in Dawn, November 5th, 2025