The court has the discretion to grant adjournments and may set aside orders rejecting adjournment applications if the reasons for refusal are not justified.

JUDGMENT :

1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to an order dated 08.03.2022, whereby Exhibit D-109 was rejected. Mr. Joshi waives service on behalf of the contesting respondent nos. 3, 4 and 9 and Ms. Dessai waives service on behalf of respondent no. 5.

2. Considering that a short point is involved and since the contesting respondent nos. 3, 4 and 9 are represented today, this matter is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

3. The learned Counsel for respondent nos. 3, 4 and 9 and Counsel for respondent no. 5 undertake to ensure that appearance is entered within one week from today. In the meanwhile, Mr. Joshi states that he has instructions to oppose the Application. Since the matter is taken up for final disposal, with the consent of all the parties appearing today, I issue Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal.

4. The order impugned was passed on the Application Exhibit D-109, seeking an adjournment which was rejected. The reason for seeking adjournment as set out in the Application is that the affidavit of evidence on behalf of the contesting respondents was served upon the petitioner on 06.03.2022, a Sunday, late in the evening via e-mail. The civil suit was scheduled to be heard on 08.03.2022. On 08.03.2022, Exhibit D-109 was presented, seeking an adjournment since the Counsel was not prepared to cross-examine the witness, given a short period between the service of the affidavit on the petitioner and the date of cross-examining the witness.

5. The impugned order reads as follows:

“This matter is of the year 2013. The ground stated in the application cannot be justified for adjourning the matter. Hence the above application is dismissed.”

6. The only reason for refusing time was that the matter was of the year 2013. The fact that the affidavit was served late on 08.03.2022, on a Sunday by e-mail has not been appreciated by the Court. In view thereof, one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the witness in question, however, on the condition that the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment on the next date.

7. In view thereof, I pass the following order:

(a) The impugned order dated 08.03.2022 is set aside to the extent it rejects the Application at Exhibit D-109.

(b) The petitioner shall proceed to cross-examine the witness, Ghanashyam Bhomkar on the next date, which the Court may fix.

(c) It is made clear that the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment on the date when the witness is made available to cross-examine.

8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.