ARJUN SINGH Vs. RUKMANIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT The revision is directed against the order dated 11.5.93, whereby the tenant -applicant's right of cross -examine has been closed.

(2.) THE brief history of the case is that N.A. landlord filed a suit for eviction on grounds of bona fide need. The need was resisted by the applicant -tenant. The case was proceeded and evidence was to be recorded on 15.4.93. Witness Shankarlal was present that day. His st.1tement was taken and thereafter at the request of counsel for tenant the case was adjourned to 11.5.93, as the counsel for tenant wanted to cross -examine the witness on the next day. On 11.5.93, the witnesses i.e. Shankarlal and Suresh were present but the counsel for tenant was not present and wanted adjournment for cross -examination. The junior Counsel was present. The adjournment was refused and the right of cross -examination was closed. The case was fixed for evidence of the tenant. Now this revision has been filed and the order of refusal of adjournment has been challenged. The contention of the applicant is that as the counsel was out it was incumbent upon the Court to have adjourned the case for cross -examination. I think this contention of the learned counsel for applicant is fallacious. It was for the counsel of the parties to take adjustment from the Court. If the counsels are absent from the Court at their sweet will, the Court would be justified in proceeding with the case.