IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1869 of 2009 Md Gayauddin Ansari son of late Md Zafar Ansari resident of Mohalla Brahmpura Town Muzaffarpur , P.S. Brahmpura PO MIT Dist. Muzaffarpur Defendant- Petitioner Versus 1. Syed Hasan Jafari son of late Maulbi Syed Nafi Hasan resident of Mohalla Brahmpura Town Muzaffarpur , P.S. Brahmpura PO MIT Dist. Muzaffarpur Plaintiff- Opposite party lst set 2. Bibi Batulan Ara w/o late M.Zafar Ansari 3. Md Sahabudin 4. Md Ziauddin Ansari both sons of late M.Zafar Ansari resident of Mohalla Brahmpura Town Muzaffarpur , P.S. Brahmpura PO MIT Dist. Muzaffarpur Defendants- Opposite Party 2nd set ----------- For the petitioner: Mr Shyam Sunder Sinha, Advocate --------- 02/ 17.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the sole defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 08.10.2009 by which learned Special Execution Munsif, Muzaffarpur rejected his application for granting one adjournment for producing his evidence and closed his evidence in Eviction Suit No.28 of 1988. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff-opposite party for eviction of the defendants on the ground of banafide personal requirement. The opposite parties were substituted as defendants in place of their predecessor who was originally defendant and subsequently they filed written statement in the year 1996. It further transpires that issues had been framed much earlier whreafter evidence of the plaintiff was started and after its conclusion the date for evidence of the defendants was fixed. 4. It transpires that in the meantime, the defendants filed an - 2 - application on 24.08.2009 for accepting their supplementary written statement which was rejected by the learned court below vide its order dated 26.08.2009. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that defendant- petitioner wanted to challenge the said order in the civil revision and hence they sought adjournments in the learned court below on 28.08.2009, 11.09.2009 and 08.10.2009. It is also stated that on the earlier two occasions the adjournment was allowed but the third adjournment sought by the defendants was rejected and evidence of the defendants was closed fixing the case for argument. 6. It transpires that against order dated 26.08.2009 the defendant-petitioner filed C.R. No. 1824 of 2009 on 28.10.2009 which was within the period prescribed under Limitation Act. The said civil revision has been dismissed now vide order dated 17.11.2009. 7. In the said circumstances, this Court finds that at least one chance must be given to the defendant-petitioner to adduce his evidence in the ends of justice. But the court is also aware that the suit out of which this civil revision has arisen is a suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity which is pending since 1988. Hence this Court finds that if notices etc. are sent to the plaintiff-opposite party the suit will unnecessarily linger for a further long period. In the said special circumstances and also in view of the fact that the matter of adjournment is a matter between the court and the party seeking adjournment, the following order is being passed in this case at this stage. - 3 - 8. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that the order of the learned court below dated 26.08.2009 has been challenged and the civil revision (C.R. No. 1824 of 2009) was filed within time by the defendant-petitioner which has been decided on 17.11.2009, hence the defendant-petitioner appears to be justified in seeking adjournment of the suit in the meantime. 9. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner submits that the argument in the suit has not yet started, hence as a matter of last indulgence defendant-petitioner is given a final chance to adduce his witnesses in the aforesaid suit, but he will have to appear in the learned court below along with a copy of this order within 15 days from the date of this order with an application for the said purposes and if such application is filed along with the order of this court within the prescribed time, the learned court below shall fix a date for the defendants for their evidence within a fort night from the said order. 10. It may be noted that the defendants’ evidence would be taken on day to day basis without allowing any adjournment to them and it should be concluded within ten days, as prayed by learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner, from the date evidence starts. After that the evidence of the defendants should be closed and immediately thereafter arguments should be started on behalf of both the parties without giving undue adjournment to any of them so that the suit is decided within three moths from today. 11. In the result, the impugned order of the learned court below dated 08.10.2009 is set aside and this civil revision is allowed - 4 - with the aforesaid directions. shahid (S.N.Hussain, J)