Amit Govil vs Sapient Corporation Private ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 423 Del

     *            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                         Date of Order: January 25, 2010
+ CM(M) 100/2010
%                                                                              25.01.2010

         Amit Govil                                                      ...Petitioner
         Through: Mr.Sahijpal, Advocate

         Versus

         Sapient Corporation Private Limited & Anr.                      ...Respondent

Through:

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

ORAL

1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 22 nd October, 2009

passed by learned trial court whereby the trial court dismissed the application of the

plaintiff (petitioner herein) for adjournment.

2. When the matter was fixed on 22nd October 2009, neither plaintiff nor counsel

for plaintiff appeared though the matter was fixed for plaintiff's evidence. No witness

of plaintiff was even present on the date fixed for evidence. An application for

adjournment was made by proxy counsel for the plaintiff on the ground that the

counsel was busy on account of elections of Delhi High Court Bar Association and on

account of a strike being declared by the Delhi Bar Association. The learned trial

court considered that this was no ground for giving adjournment.

3. A perusal of record would show that when the matter was fixed on 5 th

October, 2009, witness of plaintiff were not present and only proxy counsel for

plaintiff was present and an adjournment was sought on the ground that the counsel

for plaintiff was out of station. The witness was only to be cross examined by the

CM(M) 100/2010 Amit Govil v. Sapient Corporation Private Ltd. & Anr. Page 1 Of 2 defendant counsel. Even if counsel for plaintiff was out of station, the witness could

have appeared for his cross examination but no witness was produced on that date

and a plea was taken that witness did not feel secure in absence of his counsel.

However, despite this frivolous excuse, the court adjourned the matter to 22 nd

October 2009. Again on 22nd October 2009, counsel for plaintiff did not appear and a

plea of busyness and bar elections and strike was taken. In the bar elections, the

counsel had only to cast his vote and it is hardly a ground for adjournment. Neither

the strike is a ground for adjournment. It has been time and again ruled that strike is

not a ground for adjournment. The Courts are not on strike when the advocates go

on strike. The Courts have to function normally and the Judges have to discharge

their duties as per law. If an advocate goes on strike, he should return the brief to

his client along with the fees prior to the date of strike so that the client could

engage someone else as his advocate who was prepared to appear and conduct the

case. In the present case, the advocate did not return the brief.

4. I consider that the learned trial court rightly dismissed the adjournment

application. I find no ground to entertain this petition. The petition is hereby

dismissed. No orders as to costs.

January 25, 2010                                      SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




CM(M) 100/2010       Amit Govil v. Sapient Corporation Private Ltd. & Anr.   Page 2 Of 2