Arjun vs Murari Lal and Others

Hon''ble Dilip Gupta, J.—This petition, at the instance of the defendant, seeks the quashing of the order dated 19th September, 2003 by which the Judge, Court of Small Causes rejected the application filed by the defendant for adjournment and closed the evidence. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 29th January, 2004 by which the Revision filed by the petitioner for setting aside the aforesaid order was dismissed.

The sole reason assigned by the Courts below for rejecting the adjournment application filed by the defendant is that under Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only three adjournments can be granted and since in the instant case the defendant had sought more than three adjournments, it was not possible to grant any further adjournment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before the Court the judgment rendered by this Court in Pushpa Devi & Anr. v. Vinay Kumar & Ors., 2006 (8) ADJ 603 wherein this Court, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI), held that the provisions of Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC are not mandatory in nature and the Court on sufficient cause being shown and for sufficient reason being recorded can grant adjournment on payment of cost.

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the suit was filed in the year 1980 and even though the application was rejected in the year 2003, further proceedings in the suit could not take place because of the stay order granted by the Court and, therefore, the plaintiffs should be compensated by imposing costs and a further direction should be issued for deciding the SCC Suit expeditiously.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the defendant shall not take adjournment and a direction may be issued to decide the suit expeditiously.

It is a fact that the Courts below have not examined the reasons given by the defendant for seeking adjournment and have rejected the application filed by the defendant for adjournment merely for the reason that Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC does not provide for more than three adjournments.

In view of the decision of this Court in Pushpa Devi (supra), it is not possible to sustain the impugned orders. They are, accordingly, set aside. The Judge, Court of Small Causes shall now proceed to decide the suit within a period of four months from today without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the parties. However, as the suit was filed in the year 1980 and further proceedings were stayed by the order dated 17th February, 2004, it is considered necessary to impose cost of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner which shall be deposited by the petitioner before the Judge, Court of Small Causes within a period of one month from today to be withdrawn by the plaintiff on moving an appropriate application before the Judge, Court of Small Causes. If the petitioner fails to deposit the cost indicated above within the stipulated time, he shall not be permitted to lead evidence.

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.