MANORANJAN MAITY Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisional applications are directed against the order no.99 dated 17.04.2007 and the order no.91 dated 10.01.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tamluk in Mortgage Suit No.92 of 1993 whereby he has rejected the applications of the defendant no.2/petitioner for adjournment of further hearing of the said title suit.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of the two revisional applications are that the plaintiff/respondent filed the Mortgage Suit No.92 of 1993 for recovery of Rs.2,34,361.76 along with other reliefs. In that suit, the defendants including the defendant no.2/petitioner were contesting the suit by filing respective written statements and the suit proceeded up to the stage of recording evidence. After close of the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, the evidence of the defendant no.1 who took loan from the plaintiff/bank was started and the date 10.01.2006 was fixed for cross-examination of the defendant no.1 by the defendant no.2/petitioner. But he prayed for adjournment on the ground of illness and his prayer was rejected. For that reason, the defendant no.2/petitioner preferred the C.O. no.687 of 2006 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Hon'ble Court.

(3.) Thereafter the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has granted several adjournments but the defendant no.2/petitioner did not cooperate. He did not get any order of stay from the Hon'ble High Court. Accordingly, by the order no.99 dated 17.04.2007 the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has rejected the prayer for adjournment and the case was fixed for hearing argument over the suit. Being aggrieved by such orders, the other revisional case bearing C.O. No.1590 of 2007 has been filed. Now the two revisional applications are being heard analogously.