UTTAM KUMAR MOITRA Vs. CANARA BANK UDITNAGAR BRANCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Miss D. Nanda for the petitioners and Shri J. P. Choudhury for the opposite party.

(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.4.2004 passed in TMS No. 40/66 of 2001 -2003 by which the Ad hoc Addl. Dist. Judge, Fast Track Court, Rourkela, has rejected the petition for adjournment filed by the present petitioners, who are the defendants.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners submits that defendant No. 2 is an old lady and defendant No. 1 who was looking after the case on behalf of the defendants, and who had to adduce evidence in the case, was absent on 17.4.2004 as he had gone to bangalore for the cardiological treatment of his father for which the advocate for the defendants filed the petition to adjourn the hearing of the case for some days. One day thereafter, i.e., on 19.4.2004 when the suit was taken up, on similar ground advocate for defendants filed another petition for adjournment but the same was rejected. Counsel for the defendant -petitioners submits that they had not taken time earlier on any flimsy ground and on 17.4.2004 and 19.4.2004 they sought for some time on a genuine ground but the same was disallowed by the trial Court. It is argued that unless the impugned orders are set aside and an opportunity of adducing evidence to the defendants is afforded, they would suffer irreparable loss. At this juncture, learned counsel for the opposite party -Bank submits that the impugned order shows that arguments were heard from both the sides in full. Be that as it may, the trial Court should have granted some time to the defendants to adduce their evidence and by not giving an opportunity to adduce evidence, the trial Court has committed an illegality for which the impugned orders are not sustainable in law.