JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shrey Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier plaintiff-respondent has filed SCC Suit No. 48 of 2014 in which date of 5.3.2022 has been fixed, but learned counsel for the defendant was busy in some other Court, therefore, he could not appear before the Court. On the very same day, Court has passed order to proceed ex-parte. Against that he has filed recall application on 22.3.2022, which was rejected vide order dated 28.7.2022. Against the said order, petitioner-defendant has preferred SCC Revision No. 101 of 2022, which was also dismissed vide order dated 12.4.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that cause of non appearance of leaned counsel for the defendant is genuine as he is arguing before the another Court. Further, in paragraph 39 of the petition, he undertakes that he would appear each and every date before the concerned Court without taking adjournment, therefore, order may be quashed and opportunity may also be given to accept the evidence of defence. He lastly submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed this aspect in the case of The Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and Anr. Vs. Raghu Raj reported in JT 2008 (11) SC 397 and held that even if there is default on the part of advocate in not appearing at the time of hearing, defendant-petitioner shall not suffer injustice.

4. Sri Shrey Sharma, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has vehemently opposed the submission and submitted that now the hearing is concluded and tomorrow is the date fixed for pronouncement of judgment. He further submitted that defendant-petitioner is habitual to abstain from hearing of the matter. First time Court vide order dated 28.4.2015 has proceeded to decide ex-parte against the defendant. The said order was recalled vide order dated 19.5.2015. He further submitted that again case was listed on 8.1.2018, but defendant had filed adjournment application, which was accepted by the trial Court with costs of Rs. 250/-. Thereafter, case was listed on 18.1.2018 and witnesses of both the parties are present, but counsel for the defendant is not present for cross examination and accordingly, opportunity of cross examination of P.W.-1 has been closed. The said order was recalled vide order dated 21.2.2019. Case was again listed on 16.9.2019, Court has fixed the date 1.10.2019 for cross examination of P.W.-1. On the next date date i.e. 19.10.2019, P.W.-1 alongwith counsel for the plaintiff was present, but no one has appeared on behalf of the defendant and again cross examination of P.W.-1 has been closed. Further, on 14.11.2019, 10.1.2022 & 5.3.2022, learned counsel for the defendant was not present. He lastly submitted that suit was filed in the year 2014 and till 2022, approximately 22 adjournments have been sought by the defendant-petitioner. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgement of Apex Court in the cases of Gayathri vs. M. Girish reported in (2016) 0 SC 587 & Shiv Cotex vs. Tirgum Autoplast Ltd. reported in 2011 (9) SCC 678.

5. I have considered the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, order sheets, impugned order and Order XVII Rule 1 of CPC. From perusal of the order sheet, facts so argued by the learned counsel for the respondent is absolutely correct. Undisputedly, defendant-petitioner sought adjournment after adjournment in so many occasions and trial Court has granted several opportunity, but even after defendant has misused the process of law either by seeking adjournment or being absent from the hearing of the matter.

6. Order XVII Rule 1 of CPC deals with adjournment, which is quoted hereinbelow:-

"Court may grant time and adjourn hearing.- (1) The court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from t