AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manisana, J.—This revision petition arises from the order dated 19.1.1980 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge (II), Gauhati, in T.S. No. 41 of 1978.
The facts of the case may briefly be stated. The Petitioner No. 3 who is one of the Defendants in the above suit had to go to Delhi in connection with the marriage of his son Shri Uttam Singh Kuthari to be, solemnised on 22.1.1980. For this reason, the Petitioner No. 3 could not appear before the Court on 19.1.1980 and accordingly a short adjournment was prayer for so as to enable him to come to Gauhati. The learned Assistant District Judge (II), Gauhati by an order dated 19.1.1980 refused the prayer for adjournment.
Mr. B. Sarma learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the learned Judge would have adjourned the case by awarding reasonable costs in favour of the Plaintiffs; and that the learned Judge has acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. Mr. Sarma further submits that if the impugned order is allowed to stand, it will cause a failure of justice or cause an irreparable injury to the Petitioners.
The impugned order dated 19.1.1980 runt:
19.1.1980 - Defendant is again seeking adjournment on a different ground by petition No. 59. Inspite of repeated warnings Defendant is after adjournments on various pleas. The petition is therefore rejected. Evidence is closed. Fix 25.2.80 for argument.
Sd/- T. Sarmah Asstt. Dist. Judge No. 2, Gauhati.
Order 17, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, provides that the Court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit. The Court may also order as it thinks fit with respect to the costs occasioned by the adjournment.
The granting of an adjournment to a party under Order 17 , Rule 1, CPC is left to the discretion of the Court. The discretion is to be exercised judicially and reasonably upon proper materials. The main object or vesting the discretion in the Court is to enable it to prevent the party from improperly delaying the proceedings. However, the Court should not be too technical in such a matter, and an adjournment should not be refund while sufficient cause for adjournment is shown. What is sufficient cause will depend upon the circumstances of each case.
In the present case, the learned Court below has not given any finding whether the ground on which adjournment was prayed for is sufficient cause or not for granting or refusing adjournment. The exercise of its discretion to grant or refuse adjournment depends upon findings as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the cause shown. In this view of the matter, the learned Court below has acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its Jurisdiction.
Further, if the impugned order is allowed to stand, it would shut up the evidence of the Petitioners. Therefore, the order will cause an irreparable loss to the Petitioners.
Considering the over all circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the Petitioner No. 3 has shown sufficient cause for adjournment, and that if the impugned order is set aside and an order made for payment of costs by the Petitioners to the contesting Respondents, it will meet the ends of justice.
In the result, the petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and it is directed that the Petitioners shall pay a costs of Rs. 200/- to the contesting Respondents. The Petitioners shall pay the costs within a month from the date of receipt of the records of the lower Court. The records shall be sent back immediately if not required in connection with any other case. With the above observation and direction, the petition is allowed and disposed of.