Kochi, Mar 12 (IANS): The Kerala High Court minced no words when it pointed out that a good number of adjournment requests from advocates citing ill health are not true.

Justice A Badharudeen who made this remark stated that, “at present, even though the judge studies the cases, by halting on sleepless nights and expresses willingness to dispose off the cases, after hearing both sides with a view to reduce the pendency, some advocates are not co-operating with the court and they are seeking adjournment on various grounds and `illness’ is their last weapon. I have been granting such adjournments in plenty and the proceedings of this Bench would speak for the same. No doubt, some adjournment requests on the ground of illness are genuine, but majority are not. In such situation, it is very difficult to identify the genuine requests on the ground of illness," the court said and added that the "menace of adjournments" is a major reason for pendency of cases.

"Even though lawyers are duty bound to co-operate with the court in the matter of disposal and that is what is intended by co-operation between the Bar and the Bench in letter and spirit, time bound disposal of cases could not be materialized because of unnecessary adjournments. This is the biggest menace and the same is the reason for huge pendency of matters before all courts" the court said in its judgment.

The judge said that the total pendency as of February 2024 is 12,536 cases and highlighted that even if a judge disposes off four such cases per day, it would take around 15 years to dispose off all the cases. If four new cases are filed daily, then even a 30 year period would not be sufficient, the court estimated.

"If this is the scenario, how could this pendency be reduced without co-operation of the lawyers, by avoiding unnecessary adjournments," the court asked.

The court made these remarks while it was considering a petition moved by a man accused in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

The High Court finding out that the petitioner's counsel had passed away, the court directed the trial court to allow him two weeks time to appoint a new lawyer and then complete the trial within six weeks from then.