Definition
The postponement of a court hearing from one date to a future date — granted by the court on the application of a party or suo motu, subject to conditions including cost imposition for unnecessary adjournments.
Adjournment under Order XVII of the CPC is one of the most significant sources of delay in Indian courts — the systemic over-use of adjournments has been identified as the primary cause of pendency. The CPC provides: (a) courts may grant adjournment if sufficient cause is shown; (b) the court should record in writing why the adjournment is granted; (c) courts should not grant more than three adjournments per suit (Rule 1A — introduced by 2002 amendment); (d) costs may be imposed on parties seeking unnecessary adjournments. The 2002 CPC amendment significantly tightened adjournment provisions — but the cultural practice of routine adjournments in Indian litigation remains persistent.
Statutory Definition
Order XVII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: '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, but no adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the suit.' Rule 1A: 'No adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party.' Rule 2: when adjourning, the court must fix the next date and record the reasons.
Etymology & Origin
From Old French 'ajourner' (to appoint a day, to adjourn) from 'a' (to) + 'jour' (day, from Latin 'diurnum'). An adjournment is 'appointing [another] day' — postponing a hearing to a future date.
Full Legal Analysis
Adjournment: The Cost of Delay
India’s courts are famous — notoriously so — for adjournments. A single suit may be adjourned dozens of times over years. The causes: advocate unavailability, illness, client instructions, witnesses not available, documents not filed, translations not done. The effect: massive pendency, delayed justice, and the erosion of the value of court orders. The CPC 2002 amendments attempted to address this with the three-adjournment rule — with limited success.
Order XVII: The Three-Adjournment Rule
Rule 1A of Order XVII (introduced in 2002): 'No adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party.' Courts have liberally interpreted 'beyond control,' and the three-adjournment cap has been frequently honoured in breach. Costs for adjournments: Rule 2 provides that costs may be imposed for unnecessary adjournments — courts have used this power increasingly but not consistently. The goal: break the cultural expectation that adjournments are routine entitlements rather than exceptional allowances.
Adjournment and Delay
The Law Commission of India (various reports), the Supreme Court in multiple decisions, and the Justice Malimath Committee on Criminal Justice Reform have all identified adjournment culture as the principal cause of judicial delay. Reform proposals: (a) strict three-adjournment cap; (b) mandatory costs for every unnecessary adjournment; (c) video conferencing to reduce 'advocate not available' adjournments; and (d) scheduling systems that fix case timelines at the outset. The BNSS 2023 specifically requires that trial of serious criminal offences be completed within two years — an attempt to legislatively control adjournment-driven delay in criminal cases.
“An adjournment is a day of justice delayed. Every unnecessary adjournment multiplies the parties’ costs, increases their anxiety, and dilutes the law’s authority. The reform of adjournment culture is not merely a procedural matter — it is an access to justice imperative.”
This Term in Indian Statutes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 1908
"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, but no adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the suit."
Adjournment: three-adjournment cap per suit; sufficient cause required; costs for unnecessary adjournments
