(1989) 1 CLR 262
[*262] 1989 May 30
(SAVVIDES, KOURRIS, BOYADJIS, JJ.)
MICHAEL A. DEMETRIOU,
Appellant-Plaintiff,
v.
PANAYIOTA I. THEOCHAROUS AND ANOTHER,
Respondents-Defendants.
(Civil Appeal No. 7726).
Appeal - Adjournment of hearing -Application for by appellant in order to file an application for amending the original grounds of appeal - An adjurnment is a matter within the discretion of the Court, which, however, must be exercised judicially and under normal circumstances should not be granted with effect of keeping pending litigation in suspense.
The appellant applied for adjournment of the hearing of the appeal in order to file an application for amending the original grounds of appeal. In the circumstances of this case and as no hardship will be caused to the respondents by the adjournment, the Court granted the application.
Application granted.
Costs in favour of respondents.
Cases referred to:
Kier (Cyprus) Ltd. v. Trenco Construction Ltd. (1981) 1 C.L.R. 30;
Charalambous v. Kazahou (1982) 1 C.L.R. 326;
Zachariouv.Elmini Lioness (1982) 1 C.L.R. 474;
Ship Maria v. Williams & Glyns Bank Ltd (1983) 1 C.L.R. 706;
William and Glyn’s Bank v. Kouloumbis(1984) 1 C.L.R. 380. [*263]
Application.
Application by Counsel for the appellant for an adjournment in order to file an application for the amendment of the original grounds of appeal.
Chr. Theodoulou, for the appellant.
A. Mathicolonis, for the respondents.
SAVVIDES J. gave the following ruling of the Court. At the hearing of this appeal counsel for the appellant sought to put in a written notice containing additional grounds of appeal. Counsel for the respondents objected to the introduction of such notice in the absence of a formal application for amendment of the grounds of appeal to which he would have raised his objection against such amendment.
As a result counsel for the appellant applied for an adjournment to file an application for the amendment of the original grounds of appeal and the introduction of additional grounds thereto which in his submission were necessary for the determination of this appeal. Furthermore, in. support of his application for an adjournment he contended that the record of the Court which was before the Court was not correct as there were certain omissions concerning an objection raised by him and the ruling made thereon by the Court and also another objection on the admissibility of evidence, which might necessitate the taking of steps for the amendment of the record.
Counsel for the respondents objected to the application for an adjournment on the ground that it was raised at a very late stage and it should have been raised much earlier once the record of the proceedings was available by the end of January, 1989. He also contended that the interim injunction issued by the Court after the filing and pending the determination of this appeal restraining the respondents from occupying and enjoying the subject-matter property will cause serious hardship to his clients because they will continue to be deprived of the possession of the premises.
It is well settled that the granting of an adjournment is a matter within the discretion of the Court. Such discretion should, however, be exercised judicially and under normal circumstances adjournment should not be granted with the effect of keeping pending litigation in suspense as this is contrary to the principle [*264] that it in the interest of The public that litigation should come to an end speedily (interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium). (See Kier (Cyprus) Ltd. v. Trenco Constructions Ltd. (1981) 1 C.L.R. 30 at pp. 38-39, Charalambous v. Kazanou (1982) 1 C.L.R. 326 Zachariou v. Elmini Lioness (1982) 1 C.L.R.474, Ship Maria v. Williams & Glyns Bank Ltd (1983) 1 C.L.R. 706, William and Glyn’s Bank v. Kouloumbis (1984) 1 C.L.R. 380 at pp. 383-384).
We had the occasion of looking into the terms of the interim order complained of and from its contents have ascertained that such order is limited only to the 2nd respondent and does not in any way affect the occupation or use of the premises by the 1st respondent, who is the person alleging to be the Statutory tenant of the premises. Furthermore, the items of the interim order concerning the 2nd respondent are to the extent of restraining her from possessing the said premises or interfering with them in her own right. They do not appear to extent to restraining her in entering the premises either as an employee or a customer of the 1st respondent.
We have, therefore, reached the conclusion that no hardship will be caused to the respondents, as alleged by their counsel, if the adjournment is granted.
In the circumstances of the case we are satisfied that the reasons for which the adjournment is asked for are such as to justify the Court to exercise its discretion in granting this adjournment.
In the result the application for an adjournment is granted and the appeal is adjourned to the 9th October 1989, at 9:30 a.m. Any application for amendment of the grounds of appeal should be filed within 15 days from today and any opposition thereto within three week thereafter. Costs of this appeal to be costs favour of the respondent.
Application granted.
cylaw.org: Από το ΚΙΝOΠ/CyLii για τον Παγκύπριο Δικηγορικό Σύλλογο