-: 1 :- SPB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4114 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 4114 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 4114 OF 2008 India Financial Association of Seventh Day Adventists .. Petitioner. V/s. Mr. Francis Mathew & Ors. .. Respondents. WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4672 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 4672 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 4672 OF 2008 Roy E. Ryan & Ors. .. Petitioner. v/s. Mr. Francis Mathew & Ors. .. Respondents. WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4697 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 4697 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 4697 OF 2008 General Conference of Seventh Day Adventist .. Petitioner. vs. 1. Mr. Francis Mathew and others .. Respondents. --- Mr. A. M.Pungliya the Petitioner in all the petitions. Mr.Francis Mathew, the Respondent no.1 -in-person. --- CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR,J. CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR,J. CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR,J. DATED : 21ST AUGUST, 2008. DATED : 21ST AUGUST, 2008. DATED : 21ST AUGUST, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard the counsel for the petitioners and Mr. -: 2 :- Francis Mathew, the respondent no.1, appearing in person. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. 3. As short question is involved in these petitions, the same are taken up for final hearing and disposal forthwith by consent of the parties. As such these petitions can be disposed of by a common order. 4. In all these petitions, the court below rejected the application preferred by the petitioners for adjournment and at the same time imposed cost of Rs.15,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff for filing application for adjournment. The grievance made before this court is that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code to direct the applicant to pay cost for an adjournment could be pressed into service only if the request for adjournment is granted and not otherwise. In the present case, the court below has rejected the prayer for adjournment and at the same time imposed cost for making request for adjournment. Only the latter part of the order is put in issue before this court. 5. The respondent no.1, who is appearing in person, submits that the direction issued by the court below is -: 3 :- legitimate and can be supported on wider proposition. However, at the same time he submits that he is not interested in receiving suo moto cost imposed by the trial court in the impugned decisions. As the respondent waives his right to receive the amount in terms of the direction given by the court below to the petitioners to pay the cost of Rs. 15,000/- each to the plaintiff, no other controversy arises or remains for consideration before this court. 6. In the circumstances all these petitions are partly allowed to the extent of setting aside the direction given by the lower court, directing the petitioners to pay cost at the rate of Rs.15,000/- each to be paid to the plaintiff. At the same time, it is made clear that this order is not an expression of opinion either way on the issue as to whether the petitioners were justified in asking for adjournment or for that matter would become entitled for such indulgence in future. The arrangement recorded in this order is essentially on account of concession made by the respondent -plaintiff who is appearing in person before this court. 7. Order accordingly. -: 4 :- (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.) .....