ELESH Vs. NEELIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that atleast one opportunity could have been granted by the learned trial Judge to lead evidence. Reliance is placed on the ruling in the case of Kewal Krishan vs. Harnek Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. reported in : AIR 2001 SC 1440. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said ruling considered grant of final opportunity to the appellant before the Apex Court subject to payment of cost in the sum of Rs. 500/ - as ends of justice require that the appellant be given one more opportunity of leading evidence and therefore, the order closing the evidence of the appellant in that case was set aside and the trial Court was directed to permit the appellant to lead evidence subject to payment of cost.

(3.) PARTIES to the suit in this case, which was a Civil Suit of the year 2010, are expected to co -operate and assist the Court to lead evidence when the suit is fixed for hearing. Seeking repeated adjournments without any just and reasonable cause should be deprecated and discouraged. The trial Court becomes helpless when adjournments are sought on the medical grounds and may grant adjournment in the larger interest of justice when the applications are supported by the medical certificate. However, in such cases, if the trial Court is suspecting that medical certificate may be a bogus document to mislead the trial Court, the trial Court can go ahead by summoning the doctor concerned who gave medical certificate if there is tendency to seek adjournments repeatedly on medical grounds without genuine medical advice and prescription requiring bed rest. Without going into merits of the grounds for adjournment, I think if reasonable cost in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ - is imposed upon the defendant as a condition precedent for leading evidence by way of final opportunity, it would serve the ends of justice.