NAGANAGOUDA Vs. BALAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are filed calling in question the impugned orders dated 21.10.2019 and 22.10.2019 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad in O.S.No.57/2008.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applications were filed by the petitioner under Order XVII Rule 1 of CPC seeking adjournment of further cross-examination of D.W.2, i.e., the petitioner herein.

(3.) On going through the impugned orders, this Court finds that the petitioner herein has made such applications seeking adjournment of his cross- examination on the ground of health issues. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has been examined for sometime and thereafter he has sought for adjournment of his cross-examination on two occasions. The trial Court has observed that on going through the medical records, the averments made by the petitioner herein does not impress the Court and therefore, it was found that the averments lack truth. Taking the facts and circumstances into consideration, the trial Court has rejected the application.