Judge Grunis discussed the case on its merits, and whether it was necessary to amend, in accordance with the principles of the "change of façade" law, issues that are not relevant to the decision before me.
I saw fit to bring paragraph 7 of Judge Grunis's decision, which has implications, analogously, for the case before me as well:
"In conclusion, a case such as the current one must be examined not only from the point of view of the parties who are parties to the particular proceeding. When deciding on a request for amendment, the interests of other litigants, whose cases are pending in court, must also be taken into account. If the authorization of an amendment at an advanced stage of the proceeding is liable to lead to the dedication of many additional judicial resources to the proceeding, then the scales will tip in the direction of rejecting the application."
- The third case deals with the issuance of a judgment, on the basis of hearing the prosecution witnesses who were not questioned by the defendant's (appellant's) counsel, due to unanswered motions for adjournment, when the trial court (the Honorable Judge Yitzhak Inbar of this court) ruled that there was no longer room for postponement (Civil Appeal 3725/04 Libelous N. Yosef Advin; [Published in Nevo], given on the 7th of Elul 5766 (31.8.06)).
Judge Miriam Naor details the reasons for the requests for adjournment, and rejects the reasons for those requests, specific matters that belong to the same case.
Beyond that, Justice Naor adds an important dimension of the exercise of judicial discretion in matters of procedure, even when they are confronted with the argument that failure to respond to requests for adjournment causes injustice and that a party did not have his day in court.
Thus, Justice Mira Naor places judicial time and the needs of the other litigants against the need to decide the concrete case (ibid., paragraphs 21-22; emphases at the end of the section - added):
"Everyone is obligated to respect the court's time, but someone who has already wasted time in vain and a verdict has been issued against him in his absence, is obligated to do so, all the more so. In fact, the appellant tried to present the court with a fact, three days before the scheduled evidentiary hearing, arguing and repeating, in these and other formulations: I am not ready for the trial and therefore the court must reject it.