SMT. VAIJANTI DEVI Vs. SMT. USHA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision No. 460 of 1998 is directed against the order dated 14th July, 1998 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aligarh rejecting the application for adjournment. On persual of the impugned order it appears that the original suit No. 930 of 1996 filed by the plaintiff against the revisionist was pending since 1996 and the defendant was avoiding cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness, who was examined about one year before. The case was fixed on 14th July 1998 for cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness. The defendant-revisionist filed an application for adjournment for two months despite the undertaking given on the previous date i.e. 29th Oct. 1997 not to seek adjournment. The trial Court considering malafide of the defendant rejected the application and postponed the case for cross-examination after lunch. Thereafter the revisionist filed another application for adjournment on the ground that the Counsel was unable to cross-examine the witness. The plaintiff opposed the application. The learned Civil Judge considering the fact that the Counsel was present in the Court compound rejected the application.

(2.) It appears that the learned Counsel for the defendant had appeared in the Court while second application for adjournment was being considered and he left the Court room after the order was passed. He did not cross-examine the witness. The plaintiff closed his evidence. As the defendant failed to produce any witness her evidence was also closed . Thereafter after hearing the p ies the case was posted for judgement on 21st July 1998.

(3.) It appears that the defendant filed another application against rejecting her application by the order dated 14th July, 1998 on 20th July, 1998 stating therein that the Counsel had appeared after lunch in the Court on 14th July, 1998 and had preyed for two days' time on account of his illness but the prayer was refused. The said application was disposed of on 18.9.98. The learned Civil Judge considering the circumstances concluded that the conduct of the defendant was not bona fide and repeated adjournments were sought on flimsy grounds. Felt aggrieved with this order the defendant preferred Civil Revision No. 464 of 1998.