Shiv Sharan Sharma Vs. Umesh Chandra Kasliwal - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
civil procedure code - order 17, rule 1--adjournments--courts should be strict in matter of adjournments--petitioner, to show that going out was beyond his control and more urgent than attendance in court--no details given--held, court did not commit any error in refusing further time and closing his evidence.;the amended order 17, rule 1 cpc. makes it clear that the courts have to be strict in granting adjournments and should not grant time to the party, merely on asking for time. the petitioner in order to get some time from the court to examine himself ought to have shown that his going out station was very urgent and beyond his control and that, the work was more urgent than his attendance in the court as a witness. without giving full particulars of the reason, for which he requested for time, it cannot be said that the learned court below has committed an error of jurisdiction in refusing further time to the petitioner and closing his evidence.;(b) civil procedure code - order 17, rule 1 and order 19, rules 1 & 2--adjournment--no reason given in application for absence of petitioner on five dates fixed for leading evidence--plaintiff took 2 years to complete his evidence--held, no right is conferred defendant to take time in heading evidence--sufficient cause is necessary for grant of time.;in the whole of the application, there is no mention of any reasons as to why the petitioner was not present in the court on the five dates which were given to him to lead his evidence. the fact that the plaintiff took over two years to lead his evidence does not confer any right on the defendant to get a similar period for tendering his evidence. what is necessary for granting time is that there should be sufficient cause for requesting for time.;revision dismissed - - the petitioner in this case has been given five opportunities to examine himself and lead evidence in support of his case but he has failed to do so and even today he has not been able to give any reason for his absence before the court.mohini kapoor, j.1. the non petitioner plaintiff instituted a suit for eviction on grounds of non-payment of rent. it is also alleged that this was a case of second default. the evidence of the petitioner was closed by the court below namely addl. civil judge no. 5 jaipur. city on 6th march, 1986 after this, he moved an application under section 151 cr. p.c. that his affidavit may be accepted under order 19, rules 1 and 2 cpc. and he was ready to be cross examined and the plaintiff may be given an opportunity to cross examine him. with this application, he also produced certain documents and alleged them to be the part of the record of the court and prayed they may be treated as part of his affidavit and be examined is evidence in the case. this application was disallowed by the court below by his order dated 28th march, 1986.2. the present petition has been preferred against both the orders dated 6th march, 1986 and 28th march, 1986. it has been contended that the petitioner wants to examine himself alone and he could not appear in the court on the dates fixed because he was out of station. it is also contended that the plaintiff in this case took over two years to complete his evidence and it is not fair to close the evidence of the defendant after only four months. it has been strenuously urged that the case of the petitioner will go undefended, if he is not allowed an opportunity to put his version of the case before the court.3. learned counsel for the non-petitioner has pointed out that the dates fixed for defendant's evidence were 7-10-1985, 21-11-1985, 20-12-1985, 6-2-1986 and 6-3-1986 on all these five dates the petitioner was not present according to him it makes no difference whether the presiding officer was on leave or the lawyers were on strike on one day because in all circumstances it was the defendant petitioner, who ought to have been present and even today he has not given any reason for not being present on these dates.4. i have considered the contentions advanced on behalf of both the sides. as this revision cannot succeed, i am not considering the objection of the non petitioner that two orders cannot be challenged in a single revision. the petitioner in this case has been given five opportunities to examine himself and lead evidence in support of his case but he has failed to do so and even today he has not been able to give any reason for his absence before the court. it has been only vaguely said that he was out of station and there fore, he could not attend the court. however, this cannot be said to be a sufficient cause for giving dates after dates endlessly. under order 17, r.i. cpc it has been provided that the court may adjourn the case at any stage of the suit, if sufficient cause is shown. the provision (b) says that no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party. the other situations have also been mentioned as to whether a particular fact amounts to sufficient cause or not. the amended o.17, r.1, cpc makes it clear that the courts have to be strict in granting adjournments and should not grant time to the party, merely on asking for time. the petitioner in order to get some time from the court to examine himself ought to have shown that his going out of station was very urgent and beyond his control and that, the work was more urgent than his attendance in the court as a witness. without giving full particulars of the reason, for which he requested for time, it cannot be said that the learned court below has committed an error of jurisdiction in refusing further time to the petitioner and closing his evidence.5. as far as the application for taking his affidavit under o.19, rr. 1 and 2 cpc is concerned, this provision only provides for one of the manner in which the court may admit evidence and does not give any substantive right the party to lead evidence when his evidence has been closed by the court. at my instance, the learned counsel for the petitioner has read over this application, there is no mention of any reason as to why the petitioner was not present in the court on the five dates which were given to him to lead his evidence. the fact that the plaintiff took over two years to lead his evidence does not confer any right on the defendant to get a similar period for tendering his evidence. what is necessary for granting time is that there should be a sufficient cause for requesting for time and when there is none, the only course open to the court is to close the evidence and this has been done in this case.6. there is no error of jurisdiction in the passed by the courts below and no interference is called for. the revision petition is accordingly dismissed.