BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION [2271 No. NJW) OF 2011 $mgie Bench / PETITIONER Hridayram Sahu S/o Vishambhar DEFENDANT Sahu, aged about 38 years, Occupation — Mechanic, R/o Ashok Nagar, Raipur, Present Address Boirdadar Vijaypur C/o Sahasram Vishwakarma, Tahsil 85 District ~ Raigarh (C.G.), Working at Gupta Garage, Onkar Gupta Nayab Badi Station Road, Raiga‘rh (C.G.) amW‘. c, RESPONDENT PLAINTIFF Rana Ranjeet Singh Virdi, S/o Shri Onkar Singh Virdi, aged about 29 years, Swami Messers Gurjeet Engineering Works, Near Machhali Pasra, Gharghoda Road, Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUENCE OF WRIT OR WRITS, ORDER OR ORDERS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMDTANCES OF THE CASE. g.“awn/« y, a N- - WE / HIGH COURT OF CHHA Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri‘Ma Writ Petition_(_227) nindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Petitioner (Defendant) Vers Responden Plaintiff Hridayram Sahu Rana Rt Sing Viri anjee h d h nttin of nd) (Writ Petition under Article 2270f te Costiuo Iia Present: - Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari counsel for th' petitione None for respondent, thouéh served. ORAL OR (Passed on 05—05-011) Heard. 2. This petition has been med by the petitioner mpugnin order dat ig ed & ) wh, the ned 19-08-2010 and 09-02—2011(Annexure P—1 P-2, by hic lear trial Court has granted further time to t plaintifesden ad he f/rpont to duce evidence. 3 e b at tuh h intf . I Learned counsel for the petitionr sumits th hog, te plaif t to ead evdnce t ptff has been granted innumerable opporunities l ie, he laini has not led any evidence in the tter, an ev ou, rtn submission was filed in the year 2007, a thereater or th last t \ than three years, he has been granted tim by tri ort to uc r evidence, but the plaintiff has not ailed the portunity. H urter submits that the learned Court below has re ajrnn rt l v l l TTISGARH : BILASPUR No.1849 of 2011 su ‘ e r. DER 2 ma d en thgh wite nd f, f e more e the al Cu adde va op e fh gantd doumet and fuher ‘ opponunity to adduce evidence on the last date of hearing in the trial, even without there being any application for adjournment stating any sufficient caUSe. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the t Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, AIR 2005 Supreme Court, 3353, to submit that adjournment cannot be clamed as of right and uniess sufficient cause is i shown, parties are not entitled to adjournment. 5. In the Case f Salem Advocate Bar Assoction, Tamil Nadu o ia (supra), the upreme Court considered the ambit and scope of the S provisions relating to adjournment as contained in Order 17 Rule 1 C.P.C.,“ a following:- s “31. While examining the scope of the proviso to Order 17 Ruie 1(1) that more than three adjournments shali not be granted, it is to be kept in view that the proviso to Order 17 Ruie 1(2) incorporating clauses (a) to (e) by Ac 1,04 of 1976 has been retained. Clause (b) stipulates that no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party. The proviso to Order 17 Rule 1(1) and Order 17 Rule 1(2) have to b read together. So read, Order 17 does not forbid grant of adjournment where the circumstances are beyond the control of the party. ln such a case, there is no restriction on the number of adjournments to be granted. it cannot be said that even ( if the circumstances are beyond the control of a party, after having obtained the third adjournment, no further adjournment would be granted. There may be cases beyond the control of a party despite the party having obtained three adjournments. For instance, a party may be suddenly hospitalised on account of some serious ailment t e ~3_. or there may be serious accident or some act of God leading to devastation. It cannot be said that though the circumstances may be beyond the control of a party, further adjournment cannot be granted because of the restriction of three adjournments as provided in the proviso to Order 17 Rule 1. 32. ln some extreme cases, it may become necessary to grant adjournment despite the fact that three adjournments have already been granted (take the example of the Bhopal gas tragedy, Gujarat earthquake and riots, and devastation on account of the tsunami). Ultimately, it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, on the basis whereof the court would decide to grant or refuse adjournment. The provision for costs and higher costs has been made because of the practice having been developed to award only nominal costs even when adjournment on payment of costs is granted. Ordinarily, where the costs or higher costs are awarded‘ the same should be realistic, and as far as possible actual costs that had to be incurred by the other party shall be awarded where the adjournment is found to be avoidable, but is being granted on account of either negligence or casual approach of a party or is being sought to delay the progress of the case or on any such reason. Further, to save the proviso to Order 17 Rule 1(1) from the vice of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is necessary to read it down so as not to take away the discretion of the court in the extreme hard cases noted above. The limitation of three adjournments would not apply where adjournment is to be granted on account of circumstances which are beyond the control of a party. Even in cases which may not strictly come within the category of circumstances beyond the control of a party, the court by resorting to the provision of higher costs which can also include punitive costs in the discretion of the court, adjournment beyond three can be granted having regard to the injustice that may result on refusal thereof, with 33reference to peculiar facts of a case. We may, however, add that grant of any adjournment, let alone the first, second or third adjournment, is not a right of a party. The grant of adjournment by a court has to be on a party showing special and if extraordinary circumstances. It cannot be in routine. While considering the prayer for grant of adjournment, it is necessary to keep in mind the legisiative intent to restrict the grant of adjournments." 6. In the 'present case, after going through .the order sheets, which have been placed on record, it appears that the learned trial Court has been granting adjournment to the plaintiff to adduce evidence as a matter of routine without any consideration. Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that on the last date of hearing i.e. 09-02—201 1, again plaintiff was granted time. 7. Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, even though, it appears to this Court that the Court below has been granting adjournment as a matter of routine for leading evidence, l am not inclined to pass an order to close the right of plaintiff to lead evidence. However, in the interest of.justice, it is directed that the trial Court shall now expedite the trial of the suit and the parties shall not be entitled to adjournment as a matter of course except on considerations as are embodied in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu (supra) reproduced hereinabove. All endeavor shall be made to dispose off the suit within an outer limit of six month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Tumane order. > Sd/— Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge