Delhi High Court Fines Lawyer for Failing to Inform Opposite Counsel
Court Strongly Deprecates Conduct
Adjournment Rules Clarified for Legal Practice
By Legal Reporter
New Delhi: February 23, 2026:
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court imposed a fine of ₹15,000 on a lawyer for failing to inform the opposite side’s counsel while seeking an adjournment. The order, passed by Justice Anish Dayal on January 28, 2026, highlights the importance of professional courtesy and procedural discipline in court proceedings.
Also Read: Supreme Court: No Automatic Interest on Delayed Payments in Government Contracts
The Case
The matter arose in a plea filed under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908. The petitioners sought review of a July 2024 order dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
On January 28, counsel for the respondent sought an adjournment. However, the petitioner’s counsel objected, pointing out that:
- The respondent’s lawyer had not informed them in advance.
- Adjournments had already been sought on two previous occasions.
Justice Dayal agreed with the objection, noting that such conduct causes inconvenience and delays the judicial process. The Court imposed costs of ₹15,000 on the respondent’s lawyer, emphasizing that failure to notify the opposite counsel was “strongly deprecated.”
[Recommended Legal Resources]
📘 If you want practical guidance on drafting wills, codicils, and probate procedures, Will Writing Simplified is an invaluable resource.
BUY NOW: Amazon 🔹 Flipkart
Also Read: Supreme Court: Landowners Not Liable for Flat Delivery Delays Under Joint Development Agreements
Court’s Observations
- Professional courtesy is essential: Lawyers must inform the opposite side before seeking adjournments.
- Repeated adjournments are discouraged: Courts expect parties to be prepared and avoid unnecessary delays.
- Costs as deterrent: Imposing fines ensures accountability and discourages casual adjournment requests.
- Judicial efficiency: The ruling reinforces the need for smooth functioning of courts without avoidable interruptions.
Why This Matters
Adjournments are a common feature in Indian courts, but misuse can:
- Delay justice for litigants.
- Increase case backlog.
- Cause inconvenience to opposing counsel and parties.
By penalizing the lawyer, the Delhi High Court has sent a clear message that procedural discipline and respect for the opposite side are non-negotiable in legal practice.
Legal Context
Also Read: Supreme Court Clarifies: “Fact Discovered” Under Section 27 Evidence Act Goes Beyond Object Recovery
- Order XVII CPC governs adjournments, allowing them only for sufficient cause.
- Courts have repeatedly stressed that adjournments should not be granted casually.
- Professional ethics require lawyers to maintain courtesy and transparency with opposing counsel.
This ruling adds to a growing judicial trend of discouraging unnecessary adjournments and promoting efficiency in litigation.
Reactions
- Lawyers’ associations have noted that the ruling reinforces professional ethics.
- Litigants welcomed the decision, saying it will reduce delays.
- Legal experts observed that costs imposed by courts are becoming an effective tool to curb misuse of adjournments.
Closing Note
The Delhi High Court’s decision to fine a lawyer for failing to inform the opposite counsel while seeking adjournment is a reminder that professional courtesy and procedural discipline are integral to the justice system. By imposing costs, the Court has reinforced the principle that adjournments must be sought responsibly and transparently.
This ruling is expected to influence courtroom practices across India, ensuring that adjournments are not misused and that the judicial process remains efficient and fair.
Also Read: Delhi Bar Council Elections Rocked by Suspension of 67 Lawyers
GEO-Friendly Keywords
- Delhi High Court fines lawyer adjournment
- Justice Anish Dayal adjournment ruling
- Lawyer failed to inform opposite counsel Delhi HC
- Adjournment costs imposed Delhi High Court
- Section 115 CPC adjournment case Delhi
- Professional courtesy lawyers India court ruling
- Delhi HC discourages repeated adjournments
- Order XVII CPC adjournment rules explained
Also Read: ED Pushes for 500 Chargesheets Using NATGRID