Petitioner filed a suit for specific performance, against the respondents; issues were framed; case for some dates was adjourned for evidence of the petitioner, however, the evidence could not be recorded. On 22-2-2001, two witnesses of the petitioner were present in the Court, but the Court being busy in some other direction cases, could not record- the evidence, therefore, by bounding the witnesses of the present in the Court, the case was adjourned to 28-2-2001. But the other oral evidence of the petitioner was closed.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that when the case was being adjourned on account of the occupation of the Court, no penal action could be taken against the petitioner under the provisions of Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. thus the Court should have simply adjourned the case for recording of the entire evidence of the petitioner. notwithstanding that some witnesses of the petitioner were not present in the Court.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the order passed by the learned Trial Court is not in accord with the law; the case as mentioned above, was being adjourned 'because of the Court's reasoning and even if the entire evidence of the petitioner was not present but when the case was being adjourned, at least an opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to produce the witnesses, he intends to examine.
4. In view of the above, I find that the order impugned has been passed illegally therefore, the same is set aside. The petitioner is given one final opportunity to produce the whole evidence on the date so fixed by the Trial Court, when the evidence of the petitioner commences the Court should' proceed to complete his evidence on day to day basis, and no unnecessary adjournment shall be