( 1. ) THERE was no prayer in writing for adjournment by the Counsel appearing for the State in the trial Court on 17-7-1980. Shri Arun Mishra, appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner in this Court, has read out to me the order passed by the trial court on 17-7-1980, which refers obviously to the oral prayer of the counsel. There is no doubt about this because the order itself speaks what the counsel spoke to the Court. It is mentioned in the order itself that counsel submitted to the Court that he had informed the department about the case being posted for defendants evidence on that date and he had sought instructions out he had not received any instructions. Trial Court was well within its jurisdiction to refuse adjournment and repel the move to arrest "further progress of the suit". Power and jurisdiction to do so was vested in the Court by Rule 3 of order 17 Civil Procedure Code and the discretion was judicially exercised. It was done to cany out the express legislative mandate of 1976 Civil Procedure Code Amendment act by which Rule 3 was amended as follows :

". . . . . the Court may, notwithstanding such default, - (a) If the parties are present, proceed to decide th