1. In a suit filed by the respondents against the petitioner affirmative evidence of the respondents was concluded on the 1st July, 1971. Only the statement of the plaintiff-respondent remained to be recorded. The learned trial Court thereafter adjourned the case to the 8th November, 1971 for defendant, evidence. On that date, however, the Court did not have time to record the evidence of the defendants. The case was, therefore, adjourned to the 21st February, 1972 for the same purpose.
2. A request for adjournment was made on this latter date but the learned trial Court repelled it and finding that there was no sufficient cause closed the evidence of the defendant-petitioner. He, however, adjourned the case for the statement of the plaintiff to the 30th March, 1972.
3. 2.This order was treated by the petitioner as an order under Order XVII, rule 3 C.P.C. She, therefore, submitted an application for review in which she averred that on the 21st February, 1972, she could not put in appearance as she had fallen ill and for this reason could not produce her evidence too.
4. It was further alleged that she could not contact her lawyer also. Regarding the applicability of Order XVII, rule 3 C.P.C. It was urged that this provision could not be invoked since on the last date the case was not adjourned on the request of the petitioner. The review petition was dismissed by the learned trial Court on the 10th March, 1972. On the ground that the order was passed under Order XV II , rule 1 C . P . C .
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that although the learned trial Court had discretion to allow adjournment on the 21st February, 1972, but in the circumstances of the present case he has exercised his power arbitrarily, illegally and with material irregularity. Order XVII, rule 1 C.P.C. As per Punjab Amendment, provides that where sufficient cause is not shown for grant of an adjournment under sub-rule (1), the Court shall proceed with the suit forthwith. In the present case, the Court should have considered the advisability of a last adjournment on the ground that the case was being adjourned in any case to some other date for the evidence of the plaintiff. The defendant could, therefore, be directed to produce all her evidence also on that date at her own responsibility. It was not a fit case for closing the evidence of the defendant. I would not have interfered with this order, if the learned trial Court had recorded the evidence of the plaintiff also on the same date, i.e. On the 21st February, 1972 but this has not been done as the case was not fixed for that purpose. To deny the adjournment in such circumstances, when the case was being adjourned amounts to depriving the defendant respondent of an opportunity to make out or prove her own version of the case.
5. 4.I, therefore, allow this petition, set aside the order.
6. It has been made clear to the learned counsel for the petitioner that no adjournment will be granted by the trial Court at the instance of the petitioner for any reason whatsoever on that date and he has agreed to this suggestion. The parties shall appear before the learned trial Court on the 11th November, 1974. On that date the learne trial Court shall fix the date of hearing which should not be beyond the year 1974.
7. There will be no order as to costs.