(1989)1989May30 (SAW1DES, KOURRIS,BOYADJIS,JJ) MICHAELA.DEMETRIOU, Appelhint-Plaintiff, v. PANAYIOTA1.THEOCHAROUSANDANOTHER, Respondents-Defendants. {CivilAppeal No. 7726). Appeal —Adjournment of hearing—Application for by appellant in order to file an application for amending the original grounds of appeal —An adjumment is a matter within the discretion of the Court, which, however, must be exercised judicially and under normal circumstances should not be granted witheffect of keeping 5 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 willbe caused to therespondents bythe adjournment, the 10 Court granted the application. Application granted. Costsinfavour of respondents. Casesreferred to: Kier(Cyprus)Ltd. v. TrencoConstructionLtd.
(1981)1C.L.R. 30; Charalambous v.Kazanou
(1982)1C.L.R. 326; Zachariou v.ElminiLioness
(1982)1C.L.R. 474; Ship Maria v. Williams&GlynsBank Ltd.
(1983)1C.L.R. 706; Williamand Glyn'sBank v.Kouloumbis
(1984)1C.L.R.
- 262 15 1C.L.R. Demetriou v. TheocharousandAnother Application. Application by Counsel fortheappellant foran adjournment in order to file an application for the amendment of the original groundsof appeal. 5 Chr.Theodoulou, for the appellant. A. Mathicolonis, for the respondents. SAWIDES J. gave the following ruling of the Court. At the hearing of thisappeal counsel for the appellant sought toput ina written notice containing additional grounds of appeal. Counsel 10 for the respondents objected tothe introduction of such noticein theabsence ofaformalapplication foramendment ofthegrounds ofappeal towhichhewould haveraisedhisobjection againstsuch amendment. Asaresultcounsel fortheappellant applied foran adjournment 15 tofilean application fortheamendment oftheoriginalgroundsof appeal andtheintroduction ofadditionalgroundstheretowhichin his submission were necessary for the determination of this appeal. Furthermore, in support of his application for an adjournment hecontended thattherecordoftheCourtwhichwas 20 before the Court was not correct asthere 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 stepsforthe amendment of the record. 25 Counsel for the respondents objected to the application for an adjournment on the ground that itwas raised at a very late stage and itshould havebeen raisedmuchearlieroncetherecordofthe proceedings was available by the end of January,
- He also contended thattheinterim injunction issued bythe Courtafter the 30 filing and pending the determination of thisappeal restraining the respondents from occupying and enjoying the subject-matter propertywillcauseserioushardshiptohisclientsbecausetheywill continue tobe deprived of thepossession of the premises. Itiswell settled that the granting of an adjournment isa matter 35 within the discretion of the Court. Such discretion should, however, be exercisedjudicially 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 263 SavvidesJ. Demetrtou v.TheocharousandAnother
(1989)that itisinihe interest of thepublic thatlitigation should come to an end speedily (interest reipublicae utsit finis litium). (SeeKier (Cyprus)Ltd. v. Trenco Constructions Ltd.
(1981)1C.L.R. 30 at pp. 38-39; Charalambous v. Kazanou
(1982)1 C.L.R. 326; Zachariou v. ElminiLioness
(1982)1C.L.R. 474; Ship Maria v. 5 Williams& Glyns Bank Ltd.
(1983)1 C.L.R. 706; Williamand Glyn'sBank v.Kouloumbis
(1984)1C.L.R. 380 atpp.383-384). We had the occasion of looking into the terms of the interim order complained of and from its contents we have ascertained thatsuch orderislimited onlytothe2nd respondent and doesnot 10 inany way affect the occupation oruse ofthe premisesbythe 1st respondent, whoisthepersonallegingtobethestatutorytenantof the premises. Furthermore, the terms of the interim order concerning the 2ndrespondent aretothe extentofrestraining her from possessing the said premises or interfering with them inher 15 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 20 theadjournment isgranted. Inthecircumstancesof thecasewearesatisfied thatthe reasons for which the adjournment isasked for are such as to justify the Court to exercise itsdiscretion ingrantingthis adjournment. In the result the application for an adjournment isgranted and 25 theappeal isadjourned tothe9th October, 1989,at9.30 a.m.Any application for amendment of the grounds of appeal should be filed within 15daysfrom today and anyopposition thereto within threeweeksthereafter. Costsofthisappealtobecostsinfavourof the respondents. Application granted. 264