IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No. 5444-C of 2008 and R.S.A. No. 1763 of 2008 Date of decision: 22-1-2009 Isher Alloys(P) Limited … Appellant versus P.S.E. B. and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: C.M. No. 5444-C of 2008 : For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 122 days in filing the appeal is condoned. R.S.A. No. 1763 of 2008: Appellant before this Court was the plaintiff who has been non-suited by the Courts below in a suit for permanent injunction seeking restraint order against the defendant-Board from disconnecting the electricity connection. The case of the plaintiff in the suit was that on the basis of illegal demand of Rs. 16,02,248/-, defendant intended to disconnect his electricity connection. The case of the defendant was that the plaintiff is a habitual defaulter and has violated the provisions of law and that the demand so raised is genuine. Plaintiff after having taken four adjournments, including the last opportunity, examined himself as PW-1 and the cross- examination was deferred but after availing seven opportunities including the last opportunity and payment of costs, he did not appear for cross- examination and as such, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by order of the Court and the suit was dismissed and so as the appeal. The implied obligation on the Court is not to adjourn the case unless sufficient cause is shown. The cause by itself cannot always be treated as a ground for repeated adjournments. Unnecessary and avoidable adjournments must be denied by the Courts. On the one hand, trial Courts are expected to dispose R.S.A. No. 1763 of 2008 -2- of suits and other proceedings expeditiously, and on the other, if parties to a lis are permitted to get the suits adjourned on the mere asking and that too for the indefinite times, it would frustrate the very spirit behind the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff had exhausted all limits for seeking adjournment on every score whatsoever. The Courts below for want of exceptional circumstances and in view of the fact that in absence of cross-examination, the statement cannot be read into evidence and there existing no exceptional circumstances for getting any adjournment, have rightly non-suited the plaintiff-appellant. The conduct of the plaintiff-appellant no way demands exercise of judicial discretion in the Court in his favour on the grounds of equity or legal maxims. 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, much less substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed. ( ARVIND KUMAR ) January 22, 2009 JUDGE JS