MOHAN SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petition in hand has been filed assailing the order dated 25.3.2003, passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) City Varanasi in Suit No. 1203 of 1997.

(2.) It would appear that by means of order dated 20.5.2003, application filed by the petitioner seeking adjournment was rejected and evidence was ordered to be closed. Thereafter, application filed for recall of that order also came to be rejected by means of order dated 1.11.2003. Revision preferred against the said order was also dismissed.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. It would transpire that evidence of the petitioner was closed on the ground that the petitioner was disentitled to adjournment in view of the amended provision. It is evident from the record, that statement of one of the witnesses was recorded and the matter was fixed for cross-examination and statements of other witnesses. It would further appear that on the date fixed, counsel for the petitioner had not attended the Court and therefore, application for adjournment was moved. In connection with it, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of amended provisions are not intended for application to a suit instituted prior to amendment. In the instant case, the suit came to be instituted in the year 1997 while the amendment was brought about with effect from the year 2002 and therefore, proceeds the submission, impugned order of rejection of application for adjournment and closure of evidence of the petitioner was impaired. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently lent support to the impugned order arguing that the amended provisions pertain to the matter of procedure and thus would be applicable to the present case.