Har Karan Singh and Others Vs. State of U. P. and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
civil- adjournment - article 226 of constitution of india - standing counsel requesting further extension of time for filling counter-affidavit - no reasons given for not filing affidavit in time - adjournment of proceedings has to be for some specific reason and not as matter of routine - extension of time not granted-petition allowed. - a. k. yog, j.1. learned standing counsel states that counter-affidavit has not been filed and further time be granted. no reason disclosed. time and again, this court has made it clear that adjournment cannot be granted on mere asking and in routine manner. the tendency to assume that case shall be adjourned even on the excuse of drop of hat must be checked. request for granting time is rejected.2. the controversy raised in this case is squarely covered by a decision of this court in radhey mohan pandey and others v. state of u. p. and others, 1991 (18) alr 302, and in chandigarh administration v. smt. rajni vali, jt (2000) 1 sc 159 (paras 6 to 10).3. petition is allowed on the same terms and conditions as contained in the aforesaid judgment of this court.