1 34 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2211/2008. Narendra & Anr. Vs. Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Hanumangarh & Ors. Date of Order :: 4th April 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. J.L. Purohit, for the petitioners. ..... BY THE COURT: Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order dated 12.03.2008 (Annex. 5) whereby the learned Trial Court has allowed the application moved by the defendants under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure on costs of Rs. 500/- and permitted them to take part in the proceedings in the suit with cross-examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses that was earlier closed down. The learned Trial Court has, of course, observed about the ambiguous and uncertain nature of the grounds as stated by the defendants in the application for absence on 01.10.2007 about their lawyer having taken up Government engagement and, therefore, declining to conduct their case; and has also noted the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the said lawyer had been the Government 2 Counsel for about five years. The learned Trial Court has also observed that several adjournments had been taken by the defendants for cross-examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses and the trial got protracted unnecessarily. Yet, in the interest of justice, the court has allowed the application on costs of Rs.500/-. The exercise of discretion by the learned Trial Court remains unexceptionable. The matters in civil suits are preferred to be decided on merits rather than throwing out the parties on technicalities. Of course, the learned Trial Court is expected to curb against unnecessary adjournments and proceed expeditiously but then, for the defendants having moved application on the very next day after proceedings were set ex parte against them and the learned Trial court having put them to terms that upon their failure to cross-examine the plaintiffs' witnesses on the next date, the right of cross- examination shall be closed, this Court does not find any reason to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/