This is an appeal filed against the order passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji.

2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:-

The plaintiffs have instituted a Special Civil Suit No.208/91 against the respondents/defendants. Respondents/defendants appeared in the Court and filed their written statement. Issues were framed and the suit came to be fixed for recording evidence of the parties. Accordingly, part of the evidence of the plaintiffs' witness No.1 is recorded by the Court. Subsequently, the suit came to be adjourned on many occasions. Ultimately, on 2.1.2007, the same suit came up for recording evidence before the Court. On that date, the plaintiffs remained absent. Counsel for the plaintiffs informed the Court that he has no instructions in the matter and the Court may proceed in accordance with law. This was done since the other side had objected to the matter being adjourned. On 2.1.2007, therefore, the Court in the Roznama recorded the history as to how the matter came to be adjourned from time to time and how the altitude of the Counsel for the plaintiffs was recalcitrant. The Court then passed an order in the following words:-

"The suit of the plaintiffs stand closed on account of non prosecution. Proceedings closed. Sent the file to the record room as per standing instructions.-

3. Thereafter, the appellants/plaintiffs moved an application under Order 9 for restoration of the suit. This application was filed on 5.2.2007.

4. The plaintiffs/appellants contended in the said application that plaintiffs were present in the Court on 25.1.2006, on which date, the matter was adjourned on 21.2.2006. On 21.2.2006, the plaintiffs were unable to attend and therefore instructed the Counsel to seek adjournment. It was the contention of the plaintiffs that plaintiffs' Counsel did not communicate to them the next date of hearing but told them not to worry. Further, it is contended that since they had no information about the date they could not remain present on 2.1.2007. They have contended that they received information on 5.1.2007 that the suit has been closed for non-prosecution. The plaintiffs therefore pray that the suit be restored 10 file.

5. The respondents/defendants had resisted the suit and contended that the application is not maintainable. They have given the dates on which the matter was adjourned from time to time and according to them in the year 2006 it self the matter was adjourned on 12 occasions and there was no justifiable cause for the plaintiffs to remain absent. They therefore contended that the application be rejected.

6. The learned Judge of the Trial Court heard the parties and found that there was no sufficient ground for restoration of the suit. He also found that the petition was barred by limitation. Holding so she rejected the application under Order 9 and being aggrieved by that, this appeal has been preferred.

7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the respondents. The plaintiffs were required to file an application under Order 9. Rule 9 due to following order passed in the Roznama dated 2.1.2007, which is as follows:-

"Called out today.

Adv. A. Salkar present for plaintiff.

Adv. S. Usgaonkar present for deft. No.1.

Adv. L. Marshelkar present for deft. No.2.

Defendant No.3 proceeding ex-parte.

Adv. A.S. Salkar stated that he has conveyed the message to his party about today’s date of hearing, but so far he has not received any message from his party as to what is to be done for today's hearing.

Adv. S. Usgaonkar on behalf of deft. No.1 vehemently stated that Adv. A.S. Salkar is in the habit of asking adjournment on flimsy grounds and he was given final opportunity by this Court in earlier point of time but there is no salutary effect on the party or advocate Salkar.

Adv. L. Marshelkar on behalf of deft. No.2 stated that necessary co-operation is given to Adv. Salkar for adjournments but there is no end to it.

Since time and again adjournment cannot be gran