IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No. 3414-C of 2009 in C.M No. 3413-C of 2009 and RSA No. 3550 of 2008 Date of decision: 27.3.2009 Surender Kaur … Appellant. Versus Dalbir and others … Respondents Present: Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: C.M. No. 3414-C of 2009: For the cause shown in the application, the order dated 28.1.2009 whereby the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, is hereby recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. CM stands disposed of accordingly. Counsel states that the main case be also heard today itself. C.M No. 3413-C of 2009: For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No. 3550 of 2008: The instant Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs whose suit for mandatory injunction has been dismissed under Order 17, rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, and so as the appeal. The case of the plaintiff in the suit was that she was owner in possession of land measuring 10 kanals 7 marlas . After harvesting of Rabi crop for 2001, the defendants in connivance with each other lifted 85000 square feet earth from her land with the help of crane and trucks. They lifted 340 trucks earth from her land and filled the same in their 8 RSA No. 3550 of 2008 -2- acres of land. Upon notice of the suit, defendants 1 to 5 and 8 in their written statement took up the plea that in fact plaintiff and defendant No.7 approached them and offered to lift the earth upto the level of 1 ½ feet in depth from the level of the land already existing at the spot, which was being cultivated by defendant No. 7 on behalf of the plaintiff as the plaintiff is brother’s wife of defendant No.7. On the asking of the plaintiff and defendant No.7, settlement was arrived at between the parties in the presence of Tara Chand Member Panchayat and Sahab Singh Ex.Sarpanch that the defendants 1 to 5 and 8 would pay Rs.11,000/- which was duly paid at the same time in presence of these persons, which was so accepted by defendant No.7 in presence of plaintiff as per her wishes. Plaintiff led no evidence despite having availed as many as 11 opportunities and it resulted in dismissal of her suit under Order 17, rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure. No doubt, the Statute provides guidelines not to grant adjournment sought by one party in the hearing of a suit of more than three occasions but at the same time, it does not put complete fetters on the Court’s discretion for such grant of adjournment in the case, if there exists exceptional reasons or circumstances beyond the control of that party seeking adjournment. The Court must be satisfied by the party making such prayer that special and extra-ordinary circumstances were available for grant of an adjournment and the Court is not supposed to make routine order in this regard. However, the present case does not satisfy the said test. In support of her claim, plaintiff led no evidence except producing on record her sole statement by way of affidavit but did not turn up for cross-examination and in absence thereof, discarding the affidavit, she has rightly been held not entitled to the relief sought for. As observed above, eleven adjournments had been sought, that too without any exceptional reasons or circumstances. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal. Dismissed. March 27, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE