DATTA SHANKAR Vs. RAJARAM DATTA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel for both sides. Learned counsel for the respondents waives service of notice. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THIS Revision Application is filed against the Order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ponda , in Regular Civil Suit No.123/90/B dated November, 1999. The Regular Civil Suit was fixed for further cross examination of the plaintiff's witness no.1 on that day. The learned counsel for the defendants filed an application for adjournment stating that he was unable to attend the Court and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs gave his no objection for granting the adjournment. Even then, the learned Civil Judge rejected the application and held that no further opportunity was granted to cross examine the plaintiff's witness no.1 and thus the matter was fixed for further hearing. Thereafter, an application was filed for setting aside the Order passed on 19th November, 1999 by the defendants. Along with that application an affidavit of the learned counsel for the defendants was filed, disclosing as to why he was unable to attend the Court on 19th November, 1999. However, the learned Civil Judge, by her Order dated 31st August, 2000, rejected that application also.

(3.) HOWEVER , it also has to be noted that since 1995 to 1999, the suit was adjourned on various occasions not only because of adjournment sought by the defendants. The roznama which is produced on record, indicates that no doubt on some occasions the defendants sought adjournment. At the same time, on some occasions the plaintiffs sought adjournment. Besides that, the matter was adjourned time and again either on the ground that the Judge was on leave, that the Judge was on training, that the Judge was busy with some other matter, or that there was failure in electricity. If all these things are taken into consideration, it cannot be said that only the defendants have to be blamed for prolonging the cross examination of the plaintiffs' witness no.1. The learned Civil Judge ought to have taken into consideration all these circumstances before coming to the conclusion that the matter was pending for completion of the cross examination of the plaintiffs' witness no.1, from January 1995. It is one thing that the defendants are prolonging the suit and therefore their right of cross examination is being fore closed and it is another thing that the matter is being adjourned from time to time on various grounds, even on the ground that the Court was unable to take up the matter. Here the learned Civil Judge while passing the Order on 19th November, 1999, did not take into consideration that aspect and rejected the application.