DHANRAJ LILARAM MOTWANI Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR DAYACHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri J. N. Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the applicants.

(2.) SHRI Chandurkar submits that the discretion exercised by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gondia, in refusing to grant adjournment was not proper and not in consonance with the principles of natural justice.

(3.) BEFORE considering the question raised by Shri Chandurkar, some facts may be noted. One Dayachand Jain filed a suit for possession, arrears of rent and damages against the present applicants and the said suit was filed after he obtained permission of the Rent Controller to determine the tenancy of the tenants. The suit for possession, arrears of rent and damages was decreed on 13-1-1991 and an application for determination of mense profits was filed under Order XX, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short C. P. C. ). The said proceedings under Order XX, Rule 12 C. P. C. continued and from time to time the applicants sought time. On 21-7-1994, since by that time the judgment-debtors had sought lot of adjournments, the trial Court granted adjournment as a last chance at the request of the present applicants and fixed the case on 4-8-1994. On 4-8-1994 again an application was filed by the counsel for the applicants, stating that he had to go to the School Tribunal at Bhandara and he sought the permission to file the reply on the next date. This application was rejected by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gondia, on 4-8-1994, observing that on the previous date time was granted as last chance and, therefore, the application deserved to be rejected.