CRP 190/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel who appears for respondent Nos. 1, 2(a), 2(b) , 3, 4(a), 4(b), 4(e), 4(f), 4(g), 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Despite notice, respond ent 4(c) is not represented. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is direc ted against the order dated 9/4/2009 passed by the learned Sardar Munsiff No.2, Silchar, Cachar in Title Execution Case No.14/1994 rejecting the prayer for adjo urnment for filing objection. A brief recital of the case for the purpose of disposal of the case may not be o ut of place. The present opposite parties, as plaintiffs, had filed Title Suit 434/81 in the Court of Sardar Munsiff No.2 Silchar, claiming right, title and interest in respect of the suit land and a preliminary decree was passed on 22/12/1984. As against the aforesaid preliminary decree, no appeal was carried. The predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, namely, Mukul Si nha, alongwith others had filed Title suit No.90/1987 against the present opposi te parties. The suit came to be dismissed for default on 4/8/1994. Thereafter, t he opposite parties filed Execution case No.14/1994 to execute the decree obtain ed in Title Suit No.434/1981. The judgment debtors which included the predecesso r-in-interest of the present petitioners, filed an application being Misc. Case No.13/1995 under Section 47 CPC. The learned Court, by an order dated 10/6/1996, rejected the Misc. Case by refusing to grant prayer for adjournment made by the judgment debtors on the ground that many opportunities were granted to the judg ment debtors. The judgment debtors again filed another application registered as Misc. Case No.25/1996 for restoration of the objection petition which was regis tered as Misc.Case No.13/1995. The said Misc. Case also came to be dismissed vid e order dated 26/2/1997. Misc. Appeal No.11/1997 filed before the Civil Judge, S enior Division, at Silchar, also resulted in dismissal vide order dated 23/2/200 0. Challenging the aforesaid orders, a Civil Revision petition was filed be fore this Court which was registered as CRP 250/2000. This Court, while issuing notice, had also stayed the further proceeding of the Title Execution Case No.14 /1994. The decree holders, thereafter, filed an application for vacation of the interim so granted and this application was registered as Misc. Case No.169/2000 . When the matter was listed on 20/7/2004, none of the parties appeared before t he Court and as a result, the revision petition came to be dismissed for default . Out of the 5 judgment debtors, Mukul Sinha, who was the predecessor-in-i nterest of the petitioners, expired on 7/10/2005. The present petitioners were, thereafter, impleaded being the legal heirs of Mukul Sinha. On 28/11/2008, the successors-in-interest of Mukul Sinha, who are the pr esent petitioners, filed an application before learned Executing Court praying f or time to file objection. The learned Execution Court allowed the prayer and fi xed 9/1/2009 for objection. On 9/1/2009 as well as on 27/2/2009, prayer was made on behalf of the present petitioners to grant time to submit objection. Such pr ayer was allowed and the order dated 27/2/2009 indicates that prayer was allowed as last chance while fixing 9/4/2009 for filing objection. On 9/4/2009 also, pr ayer for adjournment was made vide Petition No.317/2010 on behalf of the present petitioners on the ground that they could not collect necessary documents. None had also appeared for hearing of this petition. The Executing Court, considerin g that ample opportunity was granted to the present petitioners, dismissed the p etition praying for grant of adjournment. Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Co urt would be pleased to grant one more opportunity to submit their objections. I t is his submission that the present petitioners were unable to submit the objec tion for reasons beyond their control inasmuch as they were not in possession of the documents required for filing objection. Though there were number of judgme nt debtors, other judgment debtors had no knowledge about the pendency of the ca se. It is also strenuously submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petit ioners that for one reason or the other, the grievances of the petitioners could not be effectively expressed as the petitions filed by the predecessor-in-inter est was not adjudicated on merits. Countering the submissions of Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Mr. N. Choudhury, lear ned counsel for the decree holders, submits that this case is a glaring example of how successfully the execution of the decree obtained way back in 1984 has be en successfully stalled for the last more than 15 years. It is his submission th at at no point of time, the judgment debtors had demonstrated their grievances o n the merit of the case. Materials on record would demonstrate that the judgment debtors had been merely trying to prolong the proceeding. Even in the instant c ase, the prayer for grant of time was acceded to on 3 occasions. Drawing attenti on of the Court to the provision of Order 17 Rule (1) CPC, the learned counsel f or the decree holders submits that in any stage of the suit, no adjournment shou ld be granted more than 3 times to a party during hearing of the suit. He, howev er, submits that though this provision is not applicable to the instant proceedi ng, the same may act as a guiding principle for consideration of the petition fo r adjournment. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the materials on record. The application which was filed on 9/4/2009 is not on record. Be that as it may, the statements in the revision petition as well as the tenor and con tents of the order dated 9/4/2009 would indicate that prayer was made for grant of time to enable them to obtain documents which are necessary for lodging an ob jection in the Execution Case. Even assuming that during the lifetime of their p redecessor-in-interest, the present petitioners were not taking any interest in the proceeding, there is a situational change after the demise of Late Mukul Sin ha. When they themselves say that they became aware of the proceeding in the yea r 2006 as reflected in para 2 (n) of the present petition, an explanation ought to have come as to what had happened during the period subsequent thereto. No do ubt, opportunity should always be granted to enable the parties to present their case, but there is another side of the coin as well. There are the decree holde rs who had obtained the decree and who are unable to execute the same for all th ese years. It is in this context, appropriate steps by judgment debtors at the r ight time is certainly called for. Taking of the plea that they were not in poss ession of the documents, even if true, on the overall facts and circumstances of the case, cannot come in their favour. Even after they had entered appearance o n 28/11/2008, 5 long months had elapsed but the same plea was repeated that they had not been able to obtain the documents. On this factual matrix, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Execution Court did not commit any jurisdictional error and/or material irregula rity in rejecting the petition for grant of time. Taking that view, the instant revision application is dismissed. No cost.