The central legal point established in the judgment is the Court's discretion under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC and the requirement for valid reasons for adjournment.

Heard Sri P. K. Misra holding brief of Sri H.S.Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mohd. Abid Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. With the consent of both the parties this writ petition is being heard and finally decided today itself.

2. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 27-1-1998 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Sitapur in SCC Suit No. 4 of 1993 as also against the Revisional Order dated 22-8-1998 passed by the Special Additional District Judge, Sitapur in SCC Revision No.7 of 1998.

3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the impugned orders are liable to be set aside for the reason that the Court could not proceed under Order VIII, Rule 10 CPC in the facts and circumstances and ought to have granted adjournment in view of the provisions of Order XVII, Rules 1 and 3 CPC to enable the petitioner to file his written statement. The submission is that the decree of eviction and arrears of rent is illegal and could not have been passed under the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 10 CPC. Since the plaintiff had not filed any evidence in proof of the averments made in the plaint.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar and others v. Rishi Ram and others reported in AIR 2002 SC 2520 : (2002 All LJ 1818) to state that the first date of hearing cannot be a date fixed for filing a written statement and therefore, the written statement having not been filed, the suit had not reached at the stage of final hearing and hence, the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside.

5. He also places reliance upon a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Balraj Taneja and another v. Sunil Madan and another reported in (1998) 8 SCC 396 : (AIR 1999 SC 3381) and has referred to on paragraph 29 of the judgment, which is quoted hereunder:-

"29. As pointed out earlier, the court has not to act blindly upon the admission of a fact made by the defendant in his written statement nor should the court proceed to pass judgment blindly merely because a written statement has not been filed by the defendant traversing the facts set out by the plaintiff in the plaint filed in the court. In a case, specially where a written statement has not been filed by the defendant, the court should be a little cautious in proceeding under Order 8, Rule 10 CPC. Before passing the judgment against the defendant it must see to it that even if the facts set out in the plaint are treated to have been admitted, a judgment could possibly be passed in favour of the plaintiff without requiring him to prove any fact mentioned in the plaint. It is a matter of the courts satisfaction and therefore, only on being satisfied that there is no fact which need be proved on account of deemed admission, the court can conveniently pass a judgment against the defendant who has not filed the written statement. But if the plaint itself indicates that there are disputed questions of fact involved in the case regarding which two different versions are set out in the plaint itself, it would not be safe for the Court to pass a judgment without requiring the plaintiff to prove the facts so as to settle the factual controversy. Such a case would be covered by the expression "the court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved" used in sub-rule(2) of Rule 5 of Order 8, or the expression "may make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit" used in Rule 10 of Order 8."

6. It will be seen from the aforesaid decision in their application to the facts and circumstances of the present case that there are two issues which require to be considered while adjudging the illegality of the impugned orders; the first is whether the Court was satisfied with the sufficient reasons given by the petitioner for adjournment and had to postpone the proceedings under Order 17. Rule 1 CPC and the second is whether while procee