Point of Law : Adjournments should be ordinarily limited to three/four times in the life of the suit as also as per the provisions of Order 17 CPC.

ORDER :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 17.12.2016, passed in Civil Suit No. 76/2013 (21/2010) (27/2010) titled as ‘Vijay Bharti & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.’, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 29.09.2016 and for providing opportunity to the petitioner for adducing evidence was dismissed, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

2. The plaintiffs-petitioners had filed a suit in a representative capacity for removal of encroachment from the public Chowk and Gali. The defendant-respondent number 3 and 4 filed separate reply and on the basis of pleadings, 7 issues were framed by the Trial Court on 25.10.2010. The defendant-respondent number 3 and 4 moved an application under Order 8 Rule 1(4) of CPC, which was allowed vide order dated 11.09.2015 and the matter was fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to bonafide reasons, such as ailments/health issues of petitioner no.4 and urgent work of the counsel, the evidence could not be submitted in time. However, without following principles of natural justice and without considering the genuine difficulty of the petitioners, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order dated 29.09.2016 and closed the evidence of the petitioners. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court had rejected the application of the petitioners for recalling the impugned order dated 29.09.2016 in a mechanical manner and closed the evidence of the petitioner without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioners.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Trial Court has passed a well-reasoned speaking order. The evidence in the trail begun in the year 2011 and between the period of 16.11.2010 to 29.09.2016, about 46 dates were sought for various reasons which unnecessarily delayed the trial. Out of these 46 dates, the petitioners were solely responsible for 19 adjournments. The learned Trial Court had granted ample opportunity to the petitioners, but because of the callous and lacklustre attitude of the petitioners, the learned Trial Court had no option but to close the evidence of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents have placed strong reliance on judgments of Apex Court in the cases of Shiv Cotex vs. Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. and Ors.: (2011) 9 SCC 678, Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. Gopal and Ors.: (2021) 9 SCR 35 and judgments of this Court in the cases of Sheo Karan and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.: AIR 1979 Raj 58, Meeta Agarwal vs. Hathroigari Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti and Ors. (S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1566/2021, decided on 04.01.2022), Gajanand and Ors. vs. Additional Civil Judge and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2939/2012 and S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No 2432/2012, decided on: 14.03.2012), Jubeda vs. Chand Khan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ No. 11294/2015, decided on: 15.12.2016), and Nandlal vs. Abdul Hamid and Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 811 of 2014, decided on: 23.01.2015).

5. Heard the rival submissions, scanned the record and considered the judgments cited at Bar.

6. It is trite law that there is limited scope of interference with a speaking order while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. It is well settled principle of law that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. It is equally well settled that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India extends to keeping the subordinate courts/tribunals within the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey the law. It has been held that though the powers under Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within bounds of their authority and not to c