The court balanced the interest of justice with the prejudice to the respondent and granted an additional opportunity to the petitioner subject to payment of substantial costs.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Ms Suzette Pereira for the petitioner and Mr Matlock D'Souza for the respondent.

2. Rule. With the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. The challenge in this petition is to the order dtd. 16/7/2018, by which the learned Trial Court dismissed the petitioner's application for adjournment and closed the petitioner's evidence.

4. The petitioner is the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.41/2014. The respondent is the defendant. The suit is for the restoration of possession of immovable property situated, according to Ms Pereira, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, near Dabolim Airport.

5. Ms Pereira points out that the matter was adjourned on earlier occasions due to the non-availability of the Judge. She pointed out that there was sufficient cause for the petitioner not proceeding with the evidence on 9/4/2018 and after considering this cause adjournment was granted up to 13/6/2018. She pointed out that the petitioner or rather the Power of Attorney of the petitioner, who is the son of the petitioner, is a seaman employed on international ships. She pointed out that he had to sail away in terms of his employment contract and therefore could not attend the Court and give evidence on the adjourned date. She submits that all this constitutes sufficient cause and, therefore, the harsh order of closure of evidence should not have been made. She submits that some reasonable costs up to Rs. 25, 000/- can be imposed upon the petitioner for an opportunity to lead evidence.

6. Mr Metlock D'Souza opposes the grant of any relief in this petition by pointing out that from 2015 onwards the matter was being delayed by the petitioner. He submits that even after ex-parte stay was obtained in this petition on 20/9/2019, the petitioner did not bother to pay process fees or copies for a long time. As a result the proceedings before the Trial Court remained stayed but there was no service effected within a reasonable time upon the respondent. He submits that initially the petitioner was to depose in the matter but at a later point in time, it was stated that his son as a Power of Attorney deposed in the matter. He submits that the impugned order was correctly made and ought not to be interfered with.

7. The rival contentions now fall for my determination.

8. On perusing the roznama it does appear that the petitioner was not very diligent in pursuing the matter and proceeding with the evidence in the suit. Initially, the petitioner was to depose in the matter but at a later point in time it was stated that his son and attorney would depose in the matter. To accommodate the petitioner's son, the Court did grant many long adjournments in the past. Therefore, it is not correct to blame the Court simply because on one or two dates the Court was unable to take the matter on the appointed date.

9. Be that as it may, an adjournment was granted by the Court on 9/4/2018. Ms Pereira pointed out that this adjournment was granted after sufficient cause was shown on the said date. Even a medical certificate dtd. 17/4/2018 is placed on record. The next date was posted on 13/6/2018. On the next date, once again an application was filed for adjournment on the ground that the attorney was sailing and his ship SUVM would be loading at SBM, Argentina for China and the voyage would take about 41 days. It was submitted in the application for adjournment that the attorney would return in the second week of September 2018. Even an email was enclosed as proof of these circumstances.

10. Although the reason may not be too much convincing, the fact remains that the attorney of the petitioner was sailing. Though the Courts are not expected to keep on adjourning matters based on the convenience of the parties or their witnesses, in the interest of justice, an opportunity can be granted to the petitioner subject no doubt to payment of substantial costs.

11. Ms Pereira states that the attorney Sur