V R PANDYA Vs. TARABEN HANSRAJ AMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IF we refer to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code the position becomes crystal clear. The law requires that ordinarily the case should be proceeded with on the date fixed. Clause (d) of the proviso appended to sub-rule (2) of rule 1 of Order 17 however lays down that if the pleader of the party is in or is unable to conduct the case for any reason other than his being engaged in another court the court shall not grant the adjournment. So under that clause the learned Judge was within his right in not granting an adjournment but there is a further provision in the clause (d) itself which says that the court should examine whether the party applying for adjournment can possibly engage another pleader in time if his advocate is in or is unable to conduct the case for any reason other than the advocates being busy in another court (The advocates being busy in another court is already declared to be no ground for adjournment vide clause (c) just there). To ask a litigant in our country to engage another advocate there and then is tantamount to refusal to look to the obvious In the facts and circu- mstances of the case the learned Judge should have point-blank told the defendants that the case would be taken up on the following day and that the defendants should be ready with another advocate A days time would be sufficient for a party to engage another advocate and be ready for the further conduct of the suit. So in my view when the Judge is inclined to act under clause (d) and when the party applies for time is ready to engage another advocate at least a days time should be given to the litigant so that the cause of Justice does not suffer. In the case on hand the learned Judge himself was not in a position to take up the matter that very as it appears from his having dealt with it on the follo- wing day despite his having refused adjournment. I fail to understand why the learned Judge adopted a queer course of refusing a short adjour- nment to enable the defendants to engage another advocate when be himself was not in position to take up the suit on that day. Had he been in a Position to take up the suit that very day he would not have deferred it to the following day when the suit was to be proceeded with ex- parte. It is in these circumstances that I say that the learned Judge has committed procedural irregularity causing miscarriage of justice. Application allowed.