The Supreme Court on Monday imposed costs of ₹25,000 on a litigant for challenging an adjournment order (an order deferring further hearing of a case to a later date) by the Uttarakhand High Court [Vishal Aggarwal vs Ritu Sharma].

The litigant had been aggrieved by the High Court's decision to defer a hearing in a cheque bounce case by three weeks, since the Court could not take it up on the date when it was listed.

A Supreme Court Bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma wondered how the litigant could have challenged such an order, since the Court had adjourned the case only due to paucity of time.

"We cannot let you go like this. How can you file this?" Justice Trivedi remarked.

The Court proceeded to dismiss the litigant's appeal and imposed costs on him.

On a related note, the Supreme Court has in recent times reiterated that it cannot compel High Courts to take up cases in a time-bound manner.

In August, it clarified that High Courts are not subordinate to the Supreme Court for it to issue such directions.

In February 2023 as well, it had observed that High Courts are also constitutional courts and cannot be regarded as subordinate to the apex court.

A year earlier, the top court had remarked that High Courts do not function under the Supreme Court's administrative superintendence, while rejecting a plea challenging the Bombay High Court's administrative circular restricting working hours in view of a surge in COVID-19 cases.