IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 538 OF 2009 SHRI. DEV SATTERI IBRAMPUR THROUGH ATTORNEY VITHAL RAMA GAUNS ... Petitioner Versus DIGAMBAR VASUDEV MATKAR AND 10 ORS., ... Respondents Shri S. R. Rivonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. M. Conception, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 17th June, 2010 P.C.:- Heard. The Petitioner herein is the plaintiff whose evidence is closed by Order dated 12-3-2009. The Petitioner is 67 years old. The Petitioner, it appears, sought several adjournments with no objection from the defendants. The Petitioner was operated for cataract on 6-2-2009 and was admitted in hospital. The suit was taken up on 7-2-2009 and the plaintiff filed an application for appointment of a Commissioner to record his evidence. Plaintiff also filed an application for adjournment. Plaintiff also produced a medical certificate. The application for appointment of a Commissioner was posted on 12-3-2009 for consideration and it was rejected on that day. Plaintiff filed an application for adjournment stating that he be given some time to lead his evidence. This application came to be rejected and the case of the plaintiff closed. The plaintiff might have sought several adjournments earlier but at least from 7-2-2009 he had some reasons to seek adjournments, first because he was operated upon on 6-2-2009, and thereafter his application for issuing of commission was rejected. On the facts of the case, the learned Civil Judge does not appear to have exercised her discretion judicially and correctly in rejecting the application for adjournment on 12-3-2009. The affidavit of evidence is stated to have been filed by the Plaintiff much earlier. Consequently, the impugned Order is hereby set aside. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division on 30th instant at 10.00 a.m. for further proceedings. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.