1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, at the stage of admission itself, by consent of Mr. Tungare, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Marques, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1.

2. By this Writ Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 4th January 2017 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Wada, below the Application at Exhibit-56 in Regular Civil Suit No. 13 of 2012.

3. The Application at Exhibit-56 was moved by the present Petitioner, who is Defendant No. 2 before the trial Court, with a request to set-aside evidence closed order passed by the Court against him on 6th August 2016 at Exhibit-1.

4. The grievance of the Petitioner is that, as he was suffering from jaundice, he could not attend the Court and as a result thereof, this order dated 6th August 2016 came to be passed by the trial Court of closing his evidence. It is urged that in the said suit, he has also filed his counter claim and therefore, if the opportunity of leading evidence is not given to him, he will suffer irreparable loss and hardship and hence, the trial Court should have set-aside the order of evidence closed and given him an opportunity to lead his evidence. It is further submitted that, this Court may give such opportunity and the Petitioner undertakes to complete his evidence and proceed with the final argument, within the time as may be stipulated by this Court and it can be also made subject to the costs.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1/Original Plaintiff has strongly supported the order passed by the trial Court and resisted the request made by learned counsel for the Petitioner for setting aside the impugned order and giving an opportunity to the Petitioner to lead his evidence. It is submitted by learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 that the trial Court has passed a reasoned order giving the valid and satisfactory reasons as to how the Petitioner is trying to prolong and protract the hearing of the suit and despite ample opportunities, has failed to lead the evidence. According to learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, even if, now, the Court makes the hearing of the suit time bound, there is no guarantee of the Petitioner proceeding with the suit diligently. Respondent No. 1 is not interested in getting the costs but in having the matter decided. According to him, no supporting document is produced on record, like the Medical Certificate to show that the Petitioner was suffering from jaundice, and very conveniently he is blaming his own Advocate for not communicating date to him. According to learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, therefore, no reason is made out to set-aside the order of evidence closed, passed against the Petitioner.

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and also perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

7. As observed by the trial Court, Respondent No. 1, the original Plaintiff had closed his evidence by filing pursis at Exhibit-52 on 28th December 2015. Thereafter, the suit was adjourned from time to time till 15th June 2016. On that day, the present Petitioner had moved an application at Exhibit-53 for seeking adjournment. The said application came to be allowed, as a "very-very last chance" and the matter was adjourned on 22nd July 2016. Again on that day, the Petitioner had moved another application below Exhibit-54 seeking adjournment. That application also came to be allowed as a "very-very-very last chance" and the matter was adjourned to 6th August 2016. On that day also, the Petitioner moved third application at Exhibit-55. The said application was naturally rejected by the trial Court and the order of 'evidence closed' was passed against him.

8. It is a matter of record that thereafter also, the suit came to be adjourned for final argument on 20th August 2016, 7th September 2016 and 19th September 2016. However, on two earlier dates, the