RAMOTAR Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE FAST TRACK SIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) BY the impugned order dated 20. 04. 2005, the learned trial Court had closed the right of the defendants to lead evidence. The case was fixed for the evidence of the defendants on 20. 04. 2005. On the said date, the counsel for the defendant was unwell and admitted to the Hospital in Bombay as is sought to be contended on the basis of the documents filed, along with this petition.

(3.) THE learned trial Court refused the prayer of the defendants made vide application (Annexure-1) for an adjournment on the ground of the illness of the counsel, taking into consideration the past conduct of the defendants and the adjournments, which were sought by the defendants for leading evidence in the past. I am of the view that so far as the past conduct of the defendants is concerned, it may have been relevant, but the same was wrongly taken into account for refusing the prayer for adjournment on 20. 04. 2005 on the ground of the illness of the counsel, who was admitted in the hospital at Bombay and in support of which the necessary documents had already been produced before the learned Court below. The Court was required to consider whether there was sufficient cause for adjourning the case on 20. 04. 2005 and not the conduct of the defendants of previous dates alone.