IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 2919 of 2008 Date of decision: 27.3.2009 Jaskirat Singh … Appellant. Versus Vijay Kumar Moonga & another … Respondents Present: Mr. S.K.Bawa, Advocate, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: The instant Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs whose suit for declaration and permanent 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 defendant No. 1, Vijay Kumar Moonga, who was owner of property measuring 6 marlas, on 14.11992 sold 2 marlas therefrom for a total consideration of Rs.50,000/- but no sale-deed was executed by defendant No.1 in his favour. According to the plaintiff, he is owner of 2 marlas of land with possession which s tands admitted by defendant No.1 in civil suit titled Vijay Kumar and others v. Jagjit Singh Brar. However, defendant No.1 by way of sale-deed dated 29.10.2002 sold the said plot including the shares of the plaintiff, to defendant No.2 without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff, for which an FIR was lodged by him against defendant No.1. Upon notice of the suit, defendant No.1 denied having entered into any agreement to sell 2 marlas of land to the plaintiff. Plaintiff led no evidence despite having availed as many as ten opportunities and it resulted in dismissal of his 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 RSA No. 2919 of 2008 -2- 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 his claim, plaintiff did not examine even a single witness including himself despite the grant of numerous opportunities and in absence thereof, he has rightly been held not entitled to the relief sought for. As observed above, ten 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 in limine. March 27, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE