RADHEY SHYAM DHOOT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT first appeal is pending since 1988, in which, the appellant-plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree dated 03.11.1988 passed by the District Judge, Merta, whereby, suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed on the ground that inspite of granting several opportunities to the plaintiff he has failed to adduce evidence before the Court and false application for adjournment was filed. The learned trial Court while exercising power under Order 17 Rule 3 C.P.C. dismissed the suit solely on the ground that the appellant-plaintiff has failed to produce evidence in spite of granting ample opportunity to adduce evidence.

(2.) ALTHOUGH during the course of hearing none is present on behalf of the appellant, but, in the appeal, it is submitted by the appellant that suit against the respondent was filed before the District Judge, Merta City for setting aside the order of conversion of land dated 14.12.1982, execution of the leasedeed, possession of the land, declaration and permanent injunction pertaining to land situated in khasra No. 568 in village Khawas Makrana (Tehsil Parbatsar), in the west side, measuring 2.5 bigha.

(3.) IN this appeal, it is submitted by the appellant that the learned trial Court has committed an error while dismissing the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff under Order 17 Rule 3, C.P.C., therefore, the judgment and decree dated 03.11.1988 is bad in law and on facts. Further, it is stated that the plaintiff was represented by his counsel before the trial Court and on 03.11.1988 an application duly supported by affidavit explaining the reason for absence was filed. In the application, it was specifically stated that due to illness of his old father who was 85 years old the plaintiff was not in a position to attend the Court; but, the learned trial Court has not considered this aspect of the matter properly and turned down the prayer for adjournment on the ground that plaintiff has gone in adoption to Sugan Chand and, in the application he has stated that Sita Ram Dhoot is his father and he is ill, therefore, adjournment may be granted. The learned trial Court ought to have granted adjournment for the purpose of leading evidence because valid reason was incorporated by the appellant in his application for adjournment and opportunity was required to be granted in the circumstances which were incorporated in the application. It is also submitted that no reply to the application was filed by the respondents, therefore, the judgment/decree passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous and deserves to be quashed.