Lilu vs Om Parkash

I.S. Tiwana, J.—The petitioner impugned the order of the trial court dated 28th January, 1989, whereby the evidence of the plaintiff was closed under Order 17 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Code. It reads as follows:

One PW present and examined. No other PW present. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff request for adjournment as he has been engaged only today. The plaintiff has opportunity. I do not find any justification in granting further adjournment. So, the evidence of the plaintiff is closed by the order of the Court. To come up on 3.3.1989 for evidence of the defendant. DWs be summoned on filing of PF and DM.

Sd/- K.R. Goyal SJIC, Kaithal 28.1.1989

It is, however, conceded that prior to the passing of this order, four adjournments had been allowed to the plaintiff-petitioner for 20th November, 1987, 10th May, 1988,4th November, 1988 and 6th January, 1989, for leading his evidence, but he did not examine any witness or summoned any witness for the said dates. It is patent from the reading of the impugned order that on the crucial dates, i.e. 28th January, 1989, adjournment was sought because there was a change of counsel. The court, to my mind, rightly declined it as merely by changing a counsel the party does not become entitled to the adjournment of the case. However, now a new, plea is being raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the same is that since on 10th January, 1989, the petitioner had deposited diet money for the summoning of a witness for 28th January, 1989, the court became duty bound to secure the presence of that witness and till that was done, the impugned order closing the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner could not be passed. I see no merit in the stand of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. As has been pointed out earlier, prior to 6th January, 1989 four adjournments had been afforded to the petitioner to lead his evidence for which dates neither any process fee for summoning the witnesses was filed nor any witness was actually produced. Merely because at a later stage diet money for summoning a witness was filed did not entitle the plaintiff to seek an adjournment as a matter of right. It is again the conceded position that at the initial stage of the suit the petitioner had filed a list for the examination of as many as ten witnesses but at no stage any process fee or diet money for summoning those witnesses was deposited. Therefore, 1 find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed but with no order as to costs.