IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 3428 of 2008 Date of decision: 15-1-2009 Gurcharan Singh & others … Appellants versus Narata Ram and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate, for the appellants. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: The instant Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs whose suit for possession has been dismissed under Order 17, rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, and so as the appeal. The case of the plaintiffs in the suit was that Bara was allotted to their father who died on 18.10.1992. They inherited it. Defendants have encroached upon a portion of the Bara without their notice. The stand of the defendants that father of the plaintiffs had agreed to sell the said Bara and received full amount and delivered possession thereof in pursuance to the agreement dated 7.10.1976. Plaintiffs led no evidence despite having availed four opportunities and it resulted in dismissal of their 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 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. The affidavit of the plaintiff-witness by way of evidence so relied may be an after-thought as the suit was dismissed under Order 17, rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, in the presence of counsel R.S.A. No. 3428 of 2008 -2- for the plaintiff and in the event of availability of affidavit, there was no reason for not tendering the same in evidence. As observed above, four 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, much less substantial, arises in the present appeal. Dismissed. ( ARVIND KUMAR ) January 15, 2009 JUDGE JS