USHA YADAV Vs. RAKMANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has questioned the order dated 21/11/2014 passed by the trial Court. By the impugned order, the petitioner/defendant No. 2's right to lead evidence has been closed while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 2 under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC seeking adjournment.

(2.) Trial Court has not accepted the reason for adjournment shown to be of indisposition of defendant No. 2, for want of any medical certificate or any other documentary evidence brought on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that defendant No. 2 , a lady is not keeping good health as she is suffering from high fever and jaundice, therefore, she had requested for adjournment. The trial Court ought not to have considered the prayer dispassionately and should have allowed the defendant No. 2 to lead evidence. It is submitted that it is true that earlier defendant No. 2 was extended the opportunity thrice. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to earlier order -sheets of trial Court dated 16/9/2014, 26/9/2014 and 28/10/2014 to submit that adjournments have been sought initially for the reason that matter was likely to be settled between the parties through mediation and on 26/9/2014 as the daughter of defendant No. 2 had undergone surgery at Gwalior and thereafter on 28/10/2014, adjournment was sought on the ground that petitioner was suffering from high fever and jaundice and therefore, the reasons shown in that application could not be said to be with ill intentions or with an oblique motive to delay the proceedings but due to the fact of ailment of defendant No. 2. It is submitted that petitioner shall be abide by such terms and conditions which this Court thinks fit and imposes, if petitioner is permitted to lead evidence.

(3.) Having perused the impugned order, as a matter of fact in the opinion of this Court, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error. Trial Court definitely keeping in mind the judicial discipline had validly exercised the discretionary jurisdiction in the matter of regulation of its procedure. However, considering the fact that defendant No. 2 is a lady and has submitted before this Court that she had all good intentions to contest the suit and shall be abide by such terms and conditions imposed by this Court, if petitioner is permitted to lead evidence, this Court accedes to the prayer of defendant No. 2 bearing in mind the concept of justice, equity and good conscience. Accordingly this petition is disposed of with following directions: -