JASVIR SINGH AND ORS. Vs. JASPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the above titled two revision petition are they arise out of the same set of facts.

(2.) When the plaintiff had examined some witnesses and he was taking time for production of a hand writing expert, defendants moved an application under Order 17 Rule 1 proviso that the case could not have been adjourned for more than three times in the manner contemplated under Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code'). To the best of my own experience, this provision is observed only in breach and seeking for adjournment is the watchword in courts. If only a Judge does not grant adjournment, he earns the odium from the Bar and there is hardly any scope that discipline can be enforced the way we behave ourselves in the court.

(3.) If in this case, the defendants were applying for closing the evidence because the plaintiff had availed more than three opportunities, the court must only be sensitive to see whether there was any undue advantage which a person was trying to secure or whether the trial of the court was being impeded by any unreasonable conduct. Adjournments not beyond three times is salutary so long as the parties would stick to the schedule. It is not a mandate that will take away the power of the court to grant more than three adjournments and if he does, no person can assume that the court was acting beyond jurisdiction. The provision is purely directory and an exhortation that unnecessary adjournments shall not be taken in court. The only way that any discipline can be enforced is by imposition of costs to cause reparation for the inconvenience caused to the party who comes to the court being ready but the other side takes times indefinitely. The court cannot merely close the evidence because three opportunities have been exhausted. It has still to see whether there was any circumstance to grant an adjournment or whether the party was taking undue advantage by not producing the evidence. I find no such consideration of the issue and the side has been closed only because more than three opportunities have been taken. This court, while ordering notice in CR No. 3595 of 2014, had allowed for the plaintiff to have the hand writing expert examined and directed the matter to be closed. At the same breath, this court had also observed that the plaintiff would disclose whether he would want any more witness on the next date of hearing. It appears that the hand writing expert was examined and the plaintiff was giving proof affidavit of himself as PW6 and witness as PW7 to prove the readiness and willingness. He had sought for an adjournment to await the decision of the court to know whether the continuation of cross-examination of PW6 and PW7 could go on.