RAMCHARAN AND OTHERS Vs. SHAMBHU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the view that I have taken, I do not think it is necessary to state in detail the facts on the merits of the controversy between the parties. The only question which is relevant for the purposes of disposal of this appeal relates to the prayer made on behalf of the appellant in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Mahendragarh for adjourning the hearing on the ground that the mother of the counsel, who had been briefed to argue the appeal, had got a sudden heart attack and refusal of the Court to accede to this prayer.

(2.) ACCORDING to the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, the appeal was fixed for arguments in his Court for 15th October, 1960. On the preceding day, Shri Mittal, counsel for the plaintiffs -appellants had stated that the appeal was to be argued by Shri B.C. Misra an Advocate of Delhi, but the said counsel was unable to attend on that day. An application had also been put in praying for adjournment, stating that Shri Misra's mother had suddenly got a severe heart attack. This was accompanied with a medical certificate. The learned Additional District Judge has observed in his order that the medical certificate did not speak of any sudden attack but mentioned that Shri Misra's mother required constant attendance because of old heart trouble. The learned Judge, however, mentioned that a number of adjournments had already been obtained on account of Shri Misra's inability to attend. The appeal being more than one year old, the lower Appellate Court felt constrained to take it up on 18th October, 1960, though, as is expressly mentioned in the order, there was no counsel to argue the appeal, on behalf of the plaintiffs -appellants. Shri Mittal, local counsel, was unable to address any argument presumably because the brief had not been received back from Shri Misra by then.

(3.) ON the merits also, it has been stressed that the learned Additional District Judge was in error in not granting the prayer for adjournment. It has been argued that on the facts and circumstances of this case, costs would certainly have met the ends of justice in so far as the inconvenience caused to the opposite party was concerned. It is emphasized that the points involved in the appeal in the Court below could not be considered to be very simple and the learned Judge should have granted a short adjournment particularly because the absence of the counsel was due to his mother having got a sudden heart attack. The learned Additional District Judge, according to Mr. Misra, was not justified in insinuating that the attack was not sudden by referring to the medical certificate, for, an old patient of heart trouble might well get an acute attack suddenly.