MD SIRAJUDDIN ANSARI Vs. WAHAB ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved of order dated 17.02.2017 by which their application for recalling order dated 26.08.2016 has been rejected.

(2.) From the order dated 20.05.2016 and the application dated 11.11.2016 which was filed by the defendants for recall of order dated 26.08.2016, what becomes apparent is that the defendants have made false statement on oath. Order dated 20.05.2016 indicates that the suit was posted next on 10.06.2016 for the defendants' evidence whereas in their application dated 11.11.2016 the defendants have pleaded that "suddenly the plaintiff on 207.2016 closed his evidence without any information to the defendants or serving any copy for closing the evidence on his behalf". Apparently, this is a statement made by the defendants contrary to what has been recorded in order dated 20.05.2016. Not only that, in the present proceeding the defendants have failed to disclose the date when the suit was first posted for their evidence. They have pleaded that the plaintiff was examined and cross-examined on 14.02012, however, they have not pleaded how many adjournments were granted to them to produce their evidence. They have not produced copies of orders passed on 10.06.2016 and thereafter. Order XVII Rule 1 (1) CPC mandates that adjournment in the suit can be granted only for reasons to be recorded in writing when sufficient cause has been shown by the party seeking adjournment. Rule 1(2) provides that if an adjournment is sought cost may be imposed as a condition for adjournment. Thus, the mandate in law is that hearing of the suit must continue from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance has been examined.

(3.) In the above facts, when the defendants have failed to offer any plausible explanation for not examining their witnesses, no exception can be taken to order dated 26.08.2016 by which the defendants' evidence was closed.