The court has a duty to consider whether a party could engage another advocate in time before refusing to grant an adjournment on the ground that the party's counsel is engaged in another court.

( 1 ) IN this revision, the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, gudivada in l. A. No. 1244/1976 setting aside the ex-parte decree in O. S. No. 481/1973 is questioned. The petitioner here in is the respondent-plaintiff in the l. A.

( 2 ) THE suit OS. No. 481/1973 was posted to 4-9-1976 for the defendant s evidence. As the defendant s counsel was engaged in arguments in the Sub-Court, 3rd defendants s husband could not adduce evidence. This fact was represented to the Court when it was called at 1 P. M. The learned district Munsif passed over the matter. When the matter was called at 2-3c p. M. S. i V. Ramakrishnaiah, advocate, representing the defendants counse submit ed trial the defendants counsel was engaged in the Sub-Court anc requested for adjournment. The learned District Munsif passed over the matter. When the matter was called again at 4-30 P. M. , there was no repre sentation and the learned District Munsif passed ex. parte decree. The 3rc dcfendant filed the above mentioned 1 A. , for setting aside the ex-parte decree. She explained the eircumstances under which she was not able to adduce evidence on behalf of the defendants. Her explanation is that her counsel was engaged in the arguments in the Sub-Court in an old suit and the counsel, therefore, could not attend the court and hence her husband could not give evidence 10 the absence to her counsel. She, therefore, requested that there is no negligence or laches on the part of the defendants and the explanation offered by her should be accepted and the ex parte decree should be set aside.

( 3 ) THE counsel for the petitioner-3rd defendant also submitted in his arguments that he was engaged in an old suit before the Sub Court and he took the whole day and hence he could not attend the Court, (though the petitioner s witnesses were ready and her husband was present for giving evidence. The 3rd defendant sated in her affidavit in the I. A. , that she was ready with her witnesses and her husband was also presenr, but as her advocate was engaged in another Court, she could not examine her witnesses.

( 4 ) THE learned District Munsif taking the view that the party should not suffer tor the sake of the advocate, allowed the petition on terms of rs. 25/- Aggrieved with the said order, the plaintiff filed this petition.

( 5 ) SRI A. L. Narayana Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, contends that the learned District Munsif has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order setting aside the ex-parte decree passed in O. S. No, 481 73 He contends that the learned District Munsif rightly decreed the ex patre after rejecting the request of the defendants counsel for so aregument on the ground that their counsel was engaged in another court, as in new of the provisions of Clause (c) to proviso under Sub-rule (2) of rule 1 of Order 17 C. P. C. adjournment cannot be granted on the ground that the pary s counsel is engaged in another Court. According to him. the party ought to have made alternative arrangements and engaged another advocate if the counsel was engaged in another Court and no adjournment an be granted on that ground as per Clause (c ).

( 6 ) AS against this, Srimathi Jhansi Rani, the learned counsel for the respondents, contends that the learned District Munsif appreciated the explanation offered by the respondents as satisfactory as there were no laches on the part of the defendants and his order setting aside the ex-parte decree is well in accordance with law and he also imposed costs for the inconvenience cause to the plaintiff on account cf the defendants advocate being engaged in another Court,

( 7 ) THE point that requires considerstion is whether no adjournment should be gramed in a part-heard suit as per clause to the proviso under sub-rulw of Rule of Order 17 C. P. C.

( 8 ) THE trial Courts have been often confronted with this question ever since this provision is incorporated in the new Civil Procedure Code. There is no dir