JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. PRAHLADRAI HARLALKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - These two revision petitions are filed by the common plaintiff in two suits who is the common respondent in two appeals. Revision petitioner herein filed two suits against the common defendant under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, seeking eviction of the defendant from the premises in question. The trial Court decreed the suits. Defendant had not adduced any evidence in the case because, it is stated, the request for adjournment on his behalf was rejected. The defendant filed two appeals before the Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh. The learned Assistant District Judge did not go into the merits of the case but considered the submission of the defendant that the trial Court made an error in not granting him an opportunity to adduce evidence, found the submission justified and set aside the decrees and judgments in the two suits and remanded the suits for further trial on merits. The learned Assistant District Judge also directed the parties to bear cost of the appeals. The common judgment in the two appeals is now challenged in the two revisions under section 115 CPC.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the sole ground on which remand was ordered is that the trial Court was in error in refusing to the defendant, that adjournment is naturally a matter of discretion of the Court and the appellate Court was not justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion by the trial Court. Learned counsel also submitted that on the last date on which the suits were posted, the defendant could have examined himself and his witnesses through his counsel with the permission of the trial Court. It is necessary to refer to few facts to appreciate this contention.

(3.) The suits were filed in 1980 and 1981 respectively. The suits stood posted for trial on 25.1.83 on which date it was adjourned on the ground that the defendant's Advocate could not conduct the case on account of head ache due to eye trouble. Adjournment was granted on payment of cost of Rs. 30.00. Cases were adjourned to 23.2.83 on which date the Court could not take up the cases evidently on account of strike by Court staff. On 23.2.83 the Court fixed the date of trial as 22.3.83, plaintiff and two witnesses were examined and were cross examined and plaintiff's evidence was closed. Defendant requested for time to adduce evidence. He also filed an application to produce some documents and another application to call for some records. The Court received documents produced but dismissed the latter request as well as the prayer for adjournment and adjourned the case to 11.4.83 for argument. On 11.4.83 the defendant was absent. On his behalf an application signed by the junior to his lawyer was filed stating that defendant's Advocate could not come to Court on account of illness and requesting for an adjournment. The Court dismissed the application and posted the case to 13.4.83 for argument. On this date defendant's Advocate was present and filed an application seeking to review the dismissal of the application on 11.4.83. It appears the defendant and his son were not present. The Court took the view that no cause was shown for the absence of the defendant on 11.4.83 and attempt was made only to explain the absence of the lawyer and no attempt was made to explain the inability of the defendant to engage another lawyer. On this ground the review application was dismissed. Thereupon the defendant's lawyer withdrew from the case and declined to address the argument. The Court heard argument of the plaintiff and adjourned the case for judgment and ultimately decreed the suits.