Dinesh Kumar S/o Roopji Guru vs Chetan Kumar S/o Shri Ajeetmal Dagariya

By way of the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 &

227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has laid challenge to

the order dated 30.03.2017 whereby, his evidence has been

closed by the learned Trial Court, inter alia, observing that on

three earlier occasions, last opportunity was granted to him.

Mr. Matoria, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

on 30.03.2017, petitioner''s counsel Mr. Keshu Lal Meena was

indisposed and hence, a written application was filed by his

associate, Mr. Ramesh Chand before the learned Trial Court

praying for a short adjournment on account of his illness.

Mr. Matoria, submitted that the learned Trial Court has not

applied justice oriented approach and has closed petitioner''s

evidence, which has resulted in serious failure of justice.

On the other hand, Mr. Anuj Sahlot, learned counsel

appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had

been granted as many as 15 opportunities to lead his evidence

and further contended that the plaintiff''s counsel, namely Mr.

Ramesh Chand was very much available in the Court, for

facilitating leading of the evidence.

In light of these submissions, learned counsel for the

respondent contended that the order impugned is perfectly just

and valid and does not call for any interference.

Having heard learned counsels for the rival parties and after

perusing the order impugned, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the Trial Court has seriously erred in passing the

impugned order. It is not in dispute that an application had been

moved by the associate of plaintiff''s counsel, intimating that

counsel Mr. Keshu Lal Meena was indisposed; and in spite of such

application, the learned Trial Court has proceeded to close the

evidence, taking into account, the earlier adjournments granted to

the plaintiff.

It is to be noted that the Courts are required to decide the

application seeking adjournment on the facts obtaining on that

particular date, without being swayed or influenced by the earlier

adjournments, which have been granted by the Court, on the

basis of circumstances so existing. A genuine request for

adjournment should not be turned down, merely because the

Court on the earlier occasion has been a bit amiable or benevolent

in granting the adjournment.

The impugned order dated 30.03.2017, closing the evidence

of the petitioner - plaintiffs is quashed and set aside, for the

reasons aforesaid.

Mr. Matoria, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

undertakes that the petitioner would produce all his witnesses, on

the next date (i.e. 12.07.2017), before the learned Trial Court and

permit their cross-examination, so as to complete his evidence.

It is made clear that the petitioner shall produce all his

witnesses peremptorily on the next date i.e. 12.07.2017 and for

the inconvenience caused to be defendant - respondent, he would

pay a cost of Rs.3000/- on or before the next date of hearing.

On failure to produce the witnesses on 12.07.2017 to pay

the cost, the learned Trial Court shall proceed with the matter, in

accordance with the law.

With the observations foregoing, the writ petition stands

allowed.