The main legal point established is that the Trial Court should consider the reasons for adjournments and afford opportunities to parties to lead evidence, especially when the delay is not attributable to the party seeking to lead evidence.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. Petitioner challenges the order dated 06.07.2022 in CS No. 1030/2016 titled as "Marion Wuerth India Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. M.S. Engineers India Pvt. Ltd." whereby the evidence of the petitioner/defendant was closed for the reason that numerous adjournments were already availed of by the learned counsel and that the evidence of the plaintiff was closed as far back as on 13.09.2018.

2. In the order passed by this Court on 22.09.2022 particularly paragraph 7, this Court had noted the details of the relevant dates in the suit, wherefrom the present petition arises. The said paragraph is extracted hereunder :

"7. The list of dates filed with the present petition indicates that

(i) on 6th October 2016, issues were framed in the suit and was posted for PE on 13th September 2018,

(ii) consequent on closure of PE, on 13th September 2018, the matter was listed for DE on 13th November 2018, 14th March 2019, 29th May 2019, 16thOctober 2019, 18thFebruary 2020 and various dates between 4th May 2020 to 31st August 2021,10th February 2022, and 17th May 2022, before DE was closed on 6th July 2022 by the impugned order,

(iii) Of these dates,

(a) on 13th November 2018 and 14th March 2019 the learned ADJ was on leave,

(b) on 29th May 2019, 16th October 2019 and 18th February 2020, adjournments had been sought as the defendant's witness had suffered a brain haemorrhage, the medical documents in support of which had been placed on record,

(c) from 4th May 2020 to 31st August 2021, the matter had to be repeatedly adjourned owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, and

(d) on 10th February 2022 and 17th May 2022, the learned ADJ was again on leave."

3. It is clear from the aforesaid detailed examination of the dates and the reasons for adjournment that that the Trial Court could have easily afforded one more opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to lead its evidence. From the aforesaid, it is also clear that the petitioner could not be blamed for the delay.

4. The office report reveals that the respondent has been served and learned counsel submits that on the last date of hearing, someone had appeared for the respondent. However, since this Court had risen by that time, the petition could not be taken up for consideration

5. Keeping in view the aforesaid as also the detailed examination of the list of dates as noted above, this Court is of the considered opinon that the order dated 06.07.2022 be set aside and one opportunity to examine its witnesses be granted to the petitioner/defendant.

6. It has been given to understand that the matter is now listed before the learned Trial Court on 25.05.2023. Learned counsel submits that the witnesses are to be summoned from Bombay.

7. Learned counsel may file an appropriate application before the learned Trial Court seeking summoning of the witnesses on or before 25.05.2023. The learned Trial Court shall pass necessary orders to summon the witnesses and fix the matter for recording of evidence of the petitioner/defendant's witnesses.

8. With the aforesaid direction, the petition along with pending application is disposed of with no order as to costs.