GAYATHRI Vs. M. GIRISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the Order dated 16.06.2016 on I.A. No. 22 filed under Order 18, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code by the petitioner/defendant in O.S. No. 1712/2007 on the file of the Principal City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, dismissing with cost.

(2.) Heard Sri. G.S. Prasanna Kumar, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

(3.) The respondent - plaintiff has filed the instant suit for declaration, recovery of possession and damages. Plaintiff's GPA holder was examined and evidence of plaintiff's side was closed on 12.9.2012. Thereafter, defendant started seeking adjournments by filing IAs. one after the other. I.A. No. 5 was filed under Order 17 Rules 1 & 2 of Civil Procedure Code seeking adjournment of the matter for one month on the ground that his Senior Counsel's mother was unwell. Then, he filed I.A. No. 9 under the very same provision seeking adjournment on the ground that his Senior Advocate was not keeping well. Thereafter, I.A. No. 10 was filed again seeking adjournment for one month on the ground that his Senior Counsel was out of Station. Then, I.A. No. 11 was filed on the ground that he was unable to get certified copies of 'P' Series document. Again fifth application i.e., I.A. No. 12 was filed on the ground that his Counsel was out of Station. I.A. No. 13 was filed for marriage ceremony of his Senior Counsel's relative. I.A. No. 14 was filed for want of certified copies etc. Again, I.A. No. 15 was filed to recall PW-1 for cross-examination by contending that on the previous occasion his Senior Counsel was engaged in some other Court. Vide Order dated 27.05.2013, the said I.A. was allowed by imposing costs of Rs. 800.00. Even then, without cross - examining the witnesses, the defendant continued by filing further I.As. No. 16, 17, 19, 20 & 21. PW-1 is a Senior Citizen aged about 75 years. Even then, one more opportunity was given to him by adjourning the matter to 03.10.2015. On that day, the witness was present, defendant and her Counsel did not turn up. Trial Court posted the suit for defendant's evidence and adjourned. Thereafter, on 22.02.2016, the impugned application was filed contending that though Counsel had requested for further cross-examination but the Court rejected the prayer and took further cross-examination as 'nil'.