JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 03.11.2023, in terms whereof, the request of the petitioner for adjournment of the cross-examination of the witnesses of the respondent herein was acceded to by the learned Court below but subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- which was to go to the account of Free Legal Aid maintained by District Legal Services Authority, Una. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the act of the learned Court below of imposing cost while granting adjournment is per-se bad in law as the learned Judge erred in not appreciating that it was the first adjournment prayed for on behalf of the petitioner. Accordingly, he submitted that as there is perversity writ large on the face of the order, the present petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.

2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the impugned order, this Court finds no perversity therein and rather finds the filing of this petition to be an abuse of the process of law.

3. Herein is a case where on the date concerned, the witnesses of the opposite party before the learned Court below were present. A request was made on behalf of the petitioner for deferring the cross-examination of the witnesses present in the Court on the ground that the learned counsel, who was to cross-examine the witnesses, was not available. Taking this fact into consideration, learned Court below while acceding to the request of the present petitioner for adjournment of the cross-examination of the witnesses before it, deferred the cross-examination subject to the cost of Rs.5,000/-. This Court fails to understand as to what is the perversity or illegality that has been committed by the learned Court below because if the party was seeking an adjournment for the cross-examination of the witnesses, who were present in the Court, learned Court below was well within its right either to have had refused to grant indulgence as was being sought and if it was granting indulgence, then to do so on such conditions as it deemed fit. This is exactly what has been done by the learned Court below. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that learned Court acceded to the request of the petitioner for deferring the cross-examination of the witnesses of the opposite party subject to payment of cost, this Court finds no perversity in the impugned order. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stands disposed of.