- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.455 OF 2011. 1 Anil Arobekar, Indian National, Senior Citizen, C/o. Mahesh General Stores, Resident of Panaji, Goa. 2 Siddesh Arobekar, son of Anil Arobekar, Indian National, Major of Age, C/o. Mahesh General Stores, Resident of Panaji, Goa. .......... Petitioners. Versus New Millennium Bakers, A Partnership firm, Represented by its partners, (1) Sushanta D. Naik; (2) Chirag D. Naik, Having registered office at ground floor, Laxmi building, Margao, Goa. .......... Respondents. Shri R. Rao, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri S. Redkar, Advocate for Respondents. CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 9th November, 2011 JUDGMENT Heard Mr. R. Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S. Redkar, learned Counsel appearing for - 2 - respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents waives notice. 3. The above petition challenges the order dated 16.7.2011 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao whereby the evidence of the petitioners came to be closed and the matter was posted for final hearing. 4. Mr. Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order and pointed out that though the petitioners had availed the quota of three adjournments, nevertheless there were special reasons which prevented the petitioners to proceed with the matter on the relevant date. Learned counsel further pointed out that on earlier date i.e on 29.6.2011, the application for amendment of written statement filed by the petitioners came to be allowed. Thereafter the matter was posted for filing amended written statement as well as evidence on the relevant date i.e 16.7.2011. Learned Counsel further stated that on account of illness of the petitioner no. 2, he was prevented from proceeding with the matter on the relevant - 3 - date. Learned Counsel has produced medical certificate of Dr. Mulgaonkar disclosing that petitioner no. 2 was having fever and was advised rest for a period of three days w.e.f. 14.7.2011. Learned Counsel further pointed out that on account of the reason beyond their control the petitioners were prevented from proceeding with the trial on the relevant date. 5. On the other hand Mr. S. Redkar, learned Counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order. Learned Counsel has pointed out that the petitioners have been seeking adjournments on false pretext time and again without any justification and, as such, the learned Judge was justified to pass the impugned order. Learned Counsel further pointed out that considering that the suit is for recovery of money, petitioners are being unnecessarily dragging in the disposal of the suit. Learned counsel as such submitted that there is no case made out by the petitioners to interfere in the impugned order. 6. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I find that the respondents have not disputed the correctness of the medical certificate produced by the petitioners at page 55 of Dr. Narendra P. Mulgaonkar which discloses that petitioner - 4 - no. 2 was sick on the relevant date and was advised bed rest. As such, I find that the petitioners had reasonable justification to seek an adjournment on the said date considering that the matter was also posted for filing the amended written statement. No doubt the record reveals that the petitioners have been seeking successive adjournments on some ground or another, taking into consideration the said conduct of the petitioners interest of justice demands that the petitioners would have to pay costs to the respondents on account of such adjournment. Though in Order 17 Rule 1 of C.P.C. there are restrictions to the number of adjournments, in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association Vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353, the Court has powers to grant such an adjournment beyond the third adjournment in case of special circumstances. Considering the sickness of petitioner no. 2 which has not been disputed, I find that the learned Judge was not justified to pass the impugned order closing the evidence of the petitioners on the relevant date. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned Judge cannot be sustained. The petitioners are to be permitted to lead their evidence subject to payment of costs of - 5 - Rs.5000/- as condition precedent to the respondents. 8. In view of the above, I pass the following:- ORDER i. The impugned order dated 16.7.2011 is quashed and set aside. ii. The petitioners are permitted to lead evidence in support of their defence subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- to the respondents as condition precedent. iii. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. iv. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. F.M. REIS, J. vn*