JUDGMENT :

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. This matter was heard at length on 03/07/2018 and 05/07/2018.

3. The petitioner who is the original defendant No.2 in SCS No.125/2011 is aggrieved by the order dated 08/02/2018 by which, the application for adjournment was rejected and the order dated 29/03/2018 by which, application Exh.126 has been rejected by the Trial Court.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner/defendant No.2 has strenuously contended that the impugned orders would result in an irreparable harm to the petitioner since the evidence of the petitioner has been closed. The issue in the suit is recovery of an amount from the defendants. If her right to lead evidence is taken away, she will be liable to pay an amount of Rs. 17,00,000/-which is the claim put forth by the plaintiff. The petitioner would be rendered defence less.

5. Learned Advocate for the plaintiff submits that the details about the transaction between the plaintiff and the 2 defendants who are real sisters, are set out in the plaint. Both have been paid an amount of Rs. 17,00,000/-by the plaintiff towards purchasing of a property which was held by their deceased father. The portion of the property which the plaintiff has purchased from these 2 sisters is valued at Rs. 21,00,000/-, which is more than the market price. The plaintiff agreed to pay a higher price since both these sisters were taking education. Rs. 17,00,000/-have already been paid and Rs. 4,00,000/are to be paid so as to complete the transaction.

6. The petitioner had filed an affidavit in lieu of her examination in chief on 17/11/2017. The matter was adjourned on 28/11/2017, 17/12/2017, 21/12/2017 by imposing costs of Rs. 200/, 06/01/2018, 10/01/2018, 21/01/2018 and finally on 08/02/2018, the impugned order has been passed. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner has lost her right to lead evidence. The matter has proceeded and all the litigating sides have advanced their oral submissions and the matter is now reserved for pronouncing the judgment.

7. The plaintiff has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'be Apex Court (3 Judges Bench) in the matter of Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar [1964 AIR (SC) 993] and the judgment of this Court in the matter of Wasudeo Sonone and another vs. Jagannath Ramlalji Jugele [AIR 1986 Bombay 43] and Dinkar s/o Pandhari Gole vs. Vitthal s/o Namdeo Bobde and others [2010 (3) ALL MR 766]. Reliance is also placed upon the Divisions Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the matter of Rabiya Bi Kassim M. vs. The Country Wide Consumer [ILR 2004 KAR 2215 = 2004 (4) Kar.L.J.189].

8. I find from the record that though the Trial Court had passed the order dated 08/02/2018 and 29/03/2018, the defendants have proceeded to advance their final submissions and the Trial Court has closed the matter for delivering its judgment in the said suit. It is also evident that the two defendants are sisters, who are taking education. The case before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff has purchased the property from them by paying Rs. 17,00,000/-and the transaction of sale would be complete after Rs. 4,00,000/-are paid. Though it would appear that sympathy needs to be shown towards the petitioner, the fact remains that she failed to appear for her cross examination and therefore her evidence was closed after 7 adjournments over a period of 3 months.

9. While hearing this matter, I had called upon the learned Advocate for the plaintiff to submit whether costs could be awarded to the plaintiff so as to balance the equities. He contended that from the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in the judgments cited supra, it is apparent that once the matter is closed for pronouncing of the judgment, such applications cannot be entertained. He submits that after the suit is decided, the defendant can raise a comprehensive challenge by filing a Regular Civil Appeal, if the suit is decreed against