' This civil revision is directed against the order, dated 29th October, 1983 whereby the learned trial Court closed the evidence of the petitioners-defendants as none of the witnesses had either been summoned or were present. The adjournment was sought on the ground that the husband of defendant No. 2 was out of country. This was not considered a sufficient reason for grant of another adjournment.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1 is sole proprietorship concern of petitioner No. 2 and as such for all practical purposes petitioner No. 2 is the contesting defendant. It is added that she being lady was to be represented by her husband and as he was out of country on the said date an adjournment in the interest of justice should have been granted.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed this request and submits that though on the previous date it was not indicated that last opportunity for producing the evidence on 29th October, 1983 is being granted yet the learned trial Court was justified in closing the evidence as the adjournment was obtained for the said date for producing the evidence. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an opportunity for appearance of the petitioner No. 2 personally or through her attorney may be granted and the petitioners give up their right to produce any other witness.
4. I have considered the respective pleas of the parties. I have also gone through the order, dated 29th October, 1983. The learned trial Court after closing the evidence of the defendants adjourned the case for arguments for 12th November, 1983. In view of above, learned counsel for the respondent fairly concedes that the impugned orde A cannot be said to have been passed under Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. He maintains that the impugned order is to be treated to have been passed under Order XVII, rule 2, C.P.C. If that is so, then the propriety of the order under rule 2, Order XVII, C.P.C. is to be considered and examined. Under Order XVII, rule 2, C.P.C. the Court may proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed in that behalf under Order IX, or make such other order as it thinks fit. The exercise of discretion in not providing an opportunity to the petitioner to appear as her own witness, does not appear to be proper. As the learned Court was proceeding to dispose of the suit forthwith, i.e. within reasonable period and was so minded as to adjourn the case for about 14 days, it was in the fitness of things to allow, at least, the petitioner an opportunity to appear as her own witness personally or through her attorney. In this respect it is to be noted that it was brought to the notice of the learned trial Court that the husband of the petitioner had gone to America. This statement was not refuted but the adjournment was refused observing that the same fails to furnish reasonable cause for granting an adjournment. Despite this, the suit was adjourned for about 14 days for arguments. The matter was anyhow adjourned and in these circumstances grant of opportunity to the petitioner No: 2 to appear as her own witness would have served the cause of justice.
5. In view of above, I am inclined to allow the petitioner No.2 an opportunity to appear personally or through attorney in support of her case. She, as undertaken, will not be entitled to produce any other witness. She will, however, be entitled to produce any document if otherwise admissible under law. The impugned order is modified to the extent noted above. The revision petition thus stands accepted to this extent. The statement of petitioner No. 2 or her attorney, if any, shall be recorded on the date on which the suit already stands fixed for hearing before the learned trial Court.
6. The parties are left to bear their own cost.