CRP 354/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. UPADHYAY JUDGMENT AND ORDER 1. I have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 16.6.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat in Title Suit No.1 of 2007, whereby the prayer made by the petitioner/defendant for an adjournment made vide Petition No.944 of 2011 was rejected. 3. Sans un-necessary details, the facts leading to the filing of this revis ion petition reveals that the respondent as plaintiff filed Title Suit No.1 of 2 007, against the defendant praying for decree of declaration that the judgment a nd decree dated 4.12.2006 passed in Title Suit No.43 of 2004 by the learned Civi l Judge, Jorhat is a nullity, erroneous, illegal and perverse and also for confi rmation of possession of the plaintiff over the suit property with permanent inj unction and alternatively, for recovery of possession of the suit property, if t he plaintiffs are dispossessed from the suit property by the defendant/petitione r. 4. After filing the suit, the petitioner as defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. Accordingly, issues were also framed by the Trial Cou rt, for just decision of the suit and consequently, the trial ensued. 5. During the course of trial, the plaintiffs filed their evidence on affid avit and accordingly, the plaintiffs witnesses were cross examined by the petiti oner-defendant. The defendant also filed his evidence on affidavit in the suit. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for cross examination of the defendant’s witnes ses. However, due to some genuine difficulties of the respective parties, the cr oss examination of the defendant witnesses could not take place. 6. On 16.3.2011 also the case was fixed for cross examination of defendan t witnesses, but on the prayer made on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff due to absence of the learned counsel, the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat, vides order da ted 16.3.2011 granted adjournment and fixed the case for cross examination of th e defendant on 27.4.2011. However, on 27.4.2011, the Presiding Officer of the Co urt was out of station, on some official duty and therefore, the matter could no t be taken up. Consequently, the case was fixed for necessary orders on 10.5.201 1. On the date fixed i.e. 10.5.2011, the cross examination of the defendant’s wi tness could not come off and therefore the case was fixed for cross examination of defendant’s witness on 16.6.2011. 7. On 16.6.2011, a petition bearing No.944 of 2011 was filed by the petitio ner-defendant seeking adjournment on the ground of ill health of the defendant b y enclosing therewith Medical Certificate to substantiate the reason, for seekin g adjournment. However, by the impugned order dated 16.6.2011 the learned Court below rejected the prayer of the petitioner for adjournment and fixed the suit f or argument. The operative part of the impugned order reads as follows- Plaintiff is represented by learned Advocate. Learned Advocate for the defendan t side filed petition No.944/11 for adjournment showing the ground for inability of defendant Ankur Baruah to attend the court. The petition is supported by one medical certificate perused the same. The learned Advocate for the plaintiff ve hemently opposed the petition by highlighting the dilatory tactic adopted by the defendant. I have gone through the case record which indicates that the case ha s been pending since 7.8.2010 for cross examination of the defendant side witnes ses. But the defendant has been avoiding to attend the Court to face cross-exami nation and taking one after another adjournment showing various grounds. Even th e defendant found not sincere to regard the order of the court passed on 16.3.20 11. Considering, the conduct of defendant in dealing with the case and havin g due regard to the fact of case is an old pending one requires expeditious tria l. I am of the view that the ground cited for adjournment is n ot reasonable. He nce, the petition for adjournment is rejected. 8. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner pointed ou t that the learned Trial Court rejected the prayer of the petitioner for adjourn ment without application of judicial mind. Learned counsel submitted that the le arned Trial Court formed an adverse opinion even prior to considering the prayer for adjournment filed under unexpected situation created due to the ailment of the petitioner and even the Medical Certificate submitted on behalf of the petit ioner was not at all taken up for consideration. 9. On perusal of the impugned order if appears that the learned Trial Court rejected the petition holding that the petitioner was adopting a dilatory tacti cs to delay the disposal of the pending proceedings, by avoiding to attend the C ourt to face cross examination. 10. Mr. Chowdhury, learned senior counsel pointed out that if on the contras t, the order passed by the trial Court on 16.3.2011 is perused then it would app ear that occasion, the prayer for adjournment made due to absence of the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff was allowed. 11. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that genuine reasons a ssigned by the petitioner for his non-appearance due to compelling medical condi tion, was not considered at all by holding that the petitioner was resorting to dialatory tactics. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that any earlier adjournmen t granted in a proceeding shall have to be considered to have been granted for r easonable ground, and any past adjournments granted by the courts should not hav e been once again examined, when a fresh adjournment petition is made for reason able ground. The mere fact of having granted adjournment in the past, for good c ause shown, would not be make any material difference in considering a fresh pra yer for adjournment filed on behalf of the parties. In support of his contention Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel relied on a decision reported in (2000) 8 SCC 532 (State Bank of India Vs. Chandra Govindji), wherein their Lordships’ he ld that in ascertaining whether a party had reasonable opportunity to put forwar d his case of not, one should not ordinarily go beyond the date on which adjourn ment is sought for. The earlier adjournment, if any, granted would certainly be for reasonable grounds and that aspect need not be once again examined if on the date on which adjournment is sought for the party concerned has a reasonable gr ound. The mere fact that in the past adjournment had been sought for would not b e of any materiality. If the adjournment had been sought for on flimsy grounds t he same would have been rejected. Therefore, in our view, the High Court as well as the learned District Judge and the Rent Controller have all missed essence o f the matter. 13. In reply to the above, Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since inception the petitioner-defendant has been trying to dela y the disposal of the proceeding, by adopting dilatory tactics, therefore, the i mpugned order passed by the Trial Court reflecting the intention of the petition er-defendant in the past and thereby rejecting the prayer for adjournment do not call for any interference by this Court. 14. In support of his contention, Mr. Roy referred to a decision of the Supr eme Court reported in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union of India & Others (2011) 8 SCC 161 delivered on 18.6.2011, wherein discussing issue relat ing to the finality of a Court’s judgment observed that unscrupulous litigants s hould be prevented from taking undue advantage by invoking jurisdiction of the C ourt. It has been also observed that by the Apex Court taking advantage of their own wrongs an unscrupulous litigant cannot be permitted to turn the Courts into a fruitful industry and such litigants cannot be encouraged. However, in the pr esent context, a prayer was made by the petitioner seeking adjournment, showing adequate reason, for his inability to appear on the date fixed due to ailment. S uch a prayer has to be considered on its own merit, taking into consideration th e inability caused due to the reasons assigned. Any past prayer for adjournment granted by the Court cannot be considered to down right reject a prayer for adjo urnment on reasonable and justified ground. If the adjournment has been sought o n a false and baseless ground, same will have to be rejected on merit, but a gen uine ground for adjournment needs to be considered in its own merit in accordanc e with law. 15. In view of the above without lengthening the discussion any further, thi s Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the Trial Court warra nts interference. Since the impugned order has the potential to cause gross inju stice to the petitioner. 16. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court is directed to afford one more oppo rtunity to the defendant to appear before the Court to face the cross-examinatio n by the plaintiff-respondent, by fixing a date for the purpose. However, it is made clear that no more than one opportunity shall be granted by the learned Tri al Court for cross examination of the petitioner-defendant. 17. Consequently, the impugned order dated 16.6.2011 is set aside and the ma tter is remitted to the learned Trial Court to proceed with the trial of the cas e expeditiously, in accordance with law. 18. In order to avoid delay in disposal of the pending case, both the partie s are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 5.1.2012 without fail . 19. With the above observation and direction, this revision petition stands disposed of.