JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J. :---Heard Shri J.N. Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the applicants.

2. Shri Chandurkar submits that the discretion exercised by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gondia, in refusing to grant adjournment was not proper and not in consonance with the principles of natural justice.

3. Before considering the question raised by Shri Chandurkar, some facts may be noted.

One Dayachand Jain filed a suit for possession, arrears of rent and damages against the present applicants and the said suit was filed after he obtained permission of the Rent Controller to determine the tenancy of the tenants. The suit for possession, arrears of rent and damages was decreed on 13-1-1991 and an application for determination of mense profits was filed under Order XX, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short C.P.C.). The said proceedings under Order XX, Rule 12 C.P.C. continued and from time to time the applicants sought time. On 21-7-1994, since by that time the judgment-debtors had sought lot of adjournments, the trial Court granted adjournment as a last chance at the request of the present applicants and fixed the case on 4-8-1994. On 4-8-1994 again an application was filed by the counsel for the applicants, stating that he had to go to the School Tribunal at Bhandara and he sought the permission to file the reply on the next date. This application was rejected by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gondia, on 4-8-1994, observing that on the previous date time was granted as last chance and, therefore, the application deserved to be rejected.

4. The procedure in getting a decree for eviction by a landlord against the tenant in this region is very cumber-some, inasmuch as the landlord is first required to get permission from the Rent Controller having jurisdiction in the matter to determine the tenancy of the tenant. It is only after that permission is granted by the Rent Controller the landlord can determine the tenancy of the tenant and after determining the tenancy he has to file the regular suit for possession/eviction and mesne profits/damages against the tenant. After having gone through this cumber-some procedure, ultimately the landlord-decree-holder got the decree from the Civil Court on 13-1-1991 and as regards determination of mesne profits, proceedings under Order XX, Rule 12 C.P.C. were registered. The said proceedings were registered in the year 1991 and for almost three years on one ground or the other, the judgment-debtors/applicants succeeded in not allowing the Court to proceed further and by 21-7-1994 and for about three years the applicants did not even file the reply before the trial Court. On 21-7-1994, however, the Court granted the applicants last chance for filing the reply and the matter was fixed on 4-8-1994. Yet again, same prayer for adjournment was made on 4-8-1994 by the counsel for the applicants on the ground that he was required to go to the School Tribunal and, therefore, prayed for time. Order XVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, provides as under :

"Court may grant time and adjourn hearing---1. (1) The Court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit.

Costs of adjournment : (2) In every such case the Court shall fix a day for the further hearing of the suit, and may make such order as it thinks fit with respect to the costs occasioned by the adjournment:

Provided that ---

(a) when the hearing of the suit has commenced, it shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds that, for the exceptional reasons to be recorded by it, the adjournment of the hearing beyond the following day is necessary,

(b) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party.

(c) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document