A trial court has the discretion to give time to a plaintiff to pay adjournment costs, even if the court has previously made the payment of costs conditional.

( 1 ) THE suit of the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed under O. XVII, R. 3, Civil Procedure Code. Hence this appeal by the plaintiff. The main question to be considered is whether the plaintiff-appellant committed a default within the meaning of the said rule so as to justify the dismissal of the suit Iby the trial Court.

( 2 ) THE suit was originally brought by M/s. Esso Standard Eastern Inc. Company which was a corporation incorporated in tile United States and was thus a foreign company. This foreign company had an undertaking working in India and managed by its Indian subsidiary company. This undertaking was acquired Iby the Central Government by the Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act No. 4 of 1974. At first, the undertaking vested in the Central Government. Later, it vested in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited which is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. An application has, therefore, been made to this Court under O. VI, R. 17. Civil Procedure Code by the counsel for the plaintiff-appellant on 30th July, 1975 for substitution of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in the place of M/s. Esso Standard Eastern Inc. Company. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondent opposed this application under a misconception. He argued firstly that Act 4 of 1974 acquired the Indian undertaking of M/s. Esso Eastern Inc. which is not the same name as M/s. Esso Standard Eastern Inc. which is the name of the plaintiff. In answer to this objection, the learned counsel for the plaintiff- appellant referred to the certificate dated 22-12-1970, a copy of which has been filed by him on 27th November, 1975. This shows that the former name of the plaintiff-company was changed in 1970 to Esso Eastern Inc. The learned counsel for the respondent argues that the said copy was not sufficient evidence to prove the change of name. We find, however, that it is the changed name which figures in the Act of 1974. The change of name of such a world famous corporation is a matter of public knowledge and cognizance of it has been taken by the Government and Parliament of India. We do not think, therefore, that it is necessary for the plaintiff- appellant to produce more proof of the change of name.

( 3 ) SECONDLY, it was argued by the respondent that the original plaintiff company, Esso Eastern Inc. ceased to exist and with that the suit filed by it abated. But it is precisely to prevent such abatement that Act No. 4 of 1974 provides that such a suit would not abate and that it shall be continued either by the Central Government in which the Indian undertaking of the company vests or by the successor in which the said undertaking would later vest.

( 4 ) WE, therefore, allow the application for amendment. MERITS OF THE APPEAL

( 5 ) THE suit of the plaintiff was dismissed on 6th June, 1and64 by the following order:

"present: Counsel for the parties Plaintiffs were burdened with Rs. 50 costs on the previous date and Rs. 30 on the date previous to that. Plaintiffs were in all to pay Rs. 80 as costs which were conditional but plaintiffs have failed to pay the same and the counsel for the plaintiffs states that costs were not conditional so he will now pay. But my previous orders are quite clear. Costs were conditional and as the plaintiffs are not ready to pay the costs, evidence of the plaintiffs cannot be recorded. The plaintiff s evidence is, therefore, deemed to be closed. As the plaintiffs evidence has been closed and as the burden of all the issues was on the plaintiffs so case is to be deemed to have not been issued therefore there is no necessity of deciding the issues separately. The suit is therefore dismissed with costs. "

( 6 ) THE background of the above order was as follows: On 22nd February, 1964. the case had been fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff. The process fee and diet money were. however, paid late by the plaintiff. The result was that though the summonses duly reac