The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing reasonable opportunity for both parties to present their case, discouraging repeated adjournments, and imposing costs to compensate the other party for adjournments.

1. Heard.

2. Admit. Mr. R.L. Khapre, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent/Caveator.

3. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Order dt.7.3.2015 delivered by 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Akola in Special Civil Suit No.97 of 2008. The suit was instituted on 19.8.2008 for damages on the ground that the plaintiff – a Private Limited Company, through its Constituted Attorney, filed a suit for damages on the ground that the defendant/Company, who is in the business of sale of seeds, represented to the plaintiff to sell 4500 quintals of raw JS335 Soyabean seeds. The plaintiff had paid sum of Rs.54,00,000/by various cheques, six in number during the period between 24.11.2007 to 28.11.2007. It is alleged that the defendant failed to comply with the terms of stocking agreement and total supply of goods to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had, therefore, claimed refund of entire amount paid together with interest/damages for nonsupply of goods worth Rs.40,43,914/. Written statement was filed by the defendant in the suit denying the agreement dt.4.8.2007 and stocking agreement dt.27.11.2007. Thus, the defendant had denied liability to pay the amount sought to be recovered from it. Thus, breach of agreement was alleged and the defendant had denied breach thereof. The learned trial Judge by the impugned Judgment and Order dt.7.3.2015 had decreed the suit.

4. On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that sufficient opportunity to lead evidence was not granted to it. My attention has been invited to ordersheet and various adjournments, majority of which were also sought by or on behalf of the plaintiff in order to submit that the learned trial Judge did not grant an opportunity to the defendant to lead evidence of its witness or witnesses so as to resist the suit for recovery of money. It is submitted that, considering the number of adjournments granted to the plaintiff, the defendant could have been granted adjournment even subject to imposition of reasonable costs to allow defendant to lead and complete evidence in the trial in the larger interest of justice. Learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that, in the trial Court, the plaintiff had repeatedly sought adjournment and they were granted. The plaintiff had closed evidence on 26.9.2014 after issues were framed in the suit on 2.9.2010. On 8.11.2014, Presiding Officer of the Court was on leave when the matter was fixed for defendant's evidence. On the adjourned date i.e. 5.12.2014, the defendant had moved an application for adjournment and it was allowed. Again, on 3.1.2015, the Presiding Officer of the trial Court was on leave. On the adjourned date i.e. on 17.1.2015, the defendant was constrained to move the application for adjournment which was rejected and strangely costs of Rs.500/were also imposed to be deposited with Legal Aid Services Authority. In respect of refusal of adjournment on 17.1.2015, it is the grievance on behalf of the appellant that the learned trial Judge was moved with an application on behalf of the defendant stating therein that the defendant wants to adduce necessary evidence; however, some important documents could not be obtained and hence, it was impossible to lead evidence. Therefore, adjournment was sought. But the application was objected on behalf of the plaintiff.

5. Learned trial Judge considered the objection raised by the plaintiff and imposed costs upon the defendant in the sum of Rs.500/payable to the Legal Services Authority; but quite strangely refused to allow the application to lead evidence on behalf of the defendant and instead simply adjourned the case for final argument. Again, on 2.2.2015, the defendant had to request for adjournment on the ground that important documents are to be traced and produced. However, the learned trial Judge appears to have granted short adjournment as a last chance by order below Exh.134, dt.2.2.2015. My attention is invited to praecipe dt.26.9.2014 produced o