IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 740 OF 2008 SHRI. DEV SHANTADURGA SANGODKAR THROUGH MANAGING COMMITTEE THROUGH PRESIDENT PRAMOD SANGODKAR ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. VAIKUNT SHRIPAD NAIK AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr.Amrut Kansar,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr R.G. Ramani, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 R-1a To 1(i), 2 & 3. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 7th January, 2009 ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bicholim on the application Exh.46 and the application Exh.47. Exh.46 was filed by the defendant seeking an adjournment on the ground that there was some difficulty in the factory run by him and, therefore, he was unable to attend the Court. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs had given no objection to the adjournment. Despite the fact that the Counsel for the plaintiffs had made endorsement of having no objection to adjournment, the learned Judge closed the evidence and as a result, it is alleged that the defendant was prevented from tendering the evidence in the matter. On 14.10.2008, the defendant moved an application for recalling the order passed on the Exh.46. That application also came to be rejected holding that three adjournments were already granted to the defendant to tender the evidence and the defendant did not avail of the opportunities which were given. The learned Judge found that the matter was old and there was direction to dispose of the old matters and as such he was unable to adjourn the matter and refused to recall the order passed on 10.10.2008. Being aggrieved by that order, this writ petition is preferred. 3. After having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondents, it is apparent that the matter was twice adjourned by the learned Judge and on the third occasion he had refused the adjournment saying that the matter was old. It may be mentioned here that the Counsel for the plaintiffs had already given no objection for the matter being adjourned and in the circumstances, the learned Judge should have considered this aspect and should have, to my mind, granted adjournment. Th adjournment do not make much difference and what is required to be seen by the judge dealing with the matter, is that substantial justice is done to the parties and in order to see that justice is done to the parties, it is necessary to give sufficient opportunity to every party to make out the case. In the instant case, the learned Judge had failed to consider this aspect and had rejected the application. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and they are set aside. 4. The writ petition is allowed. The orders passed by the learned Judge on Exh.46 and 47, are set aside. The learned Judge shall give an opportunity to the defendant to tender evidence. The defendant shall give all cooperation to the learned Judge to dispose of the matter as early as possible. The learned Judge may dispose of the matter within a period of 3 months from the receipt of the order of this Court. Authenticated copy of this order be furnished to the parties. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. SMA