JUDGMENT :—Leave granted.

2. We have heard counsel on both sides. From the record, it would appear that a suit for ejectment was filed on October 3, 1988 and the matter was adjourned from time to time on one count or the other. On 8-8-1994, while the plaintiff was present in person, due to death of an advocate, the advocates went on strike. As a consequence, the matter was adjourned to 9-8-1994. It would appear that since counsel appearing for the appellant was unwell, the appellant could not proceed with the cross-examination of the respondent plaintiff and sought for short adjournment and agreed to pay costs. Instead, the Court directed the appellant to engage another lawyer for cross-examination of the plaintiff. Since he did not do so the Court ordered for forfeiture of cross-examination and proceeded with the matter.

3. Calling in question the procedure adopted and the order passed by the trial Court the appellant went in revision. The High Court by order dated 8-9-1994 in Cr. No. 118/94 dismissed the revision. Thus this appeal by special leave.

4. Order 17, Rule 1 (1) provides that -

"The Court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit grant time to the parties