IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.186 of 2007. Date of decision: 10.09.2008. Smt.Rupinder Rani and Another …Petitioners Versus Union of India & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioners: Mr.B.S. Kanwar, Advocate. For Respondent-1: Mr.Janesh Mahajan, Central Government Counsel. For Respondent-2: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For Respondents 4,6,10: Mr.N.S. Chandel, Advocate. For Respondent-12: Mr.Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent-14: Mr.Anand Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This is the plaintiffs’ petition against the order passed by the learned trial Court, refusing adjournment to the petitioners-plaintiffs on additional opportunity to produce evidence. The learned Court observes that the case has been pending since the year 1995 and the orders reveal that a number of opportunities have been granted to the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 plaintiffs. On 2.3.2007 the case was listed for the evidence of the plaintiff subject to the condition that if no evidence is present, right of the plaintiffs to lead evidence would be closed. This order was passed on 14.9.2007. I find that the order is eminently just and that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in passing this order. No party can claim the right for adjournment at his/her pleasure and control the Court calendar. I do not find any reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed. September 10, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.