Judgment 05/03/2018 Under challenge is the order dated 10.1.2018 whereby an application for adjournment at the instance of petitioner- plaintiff (hereafter the plaintiff) for cross examination of his witnesses Mahaveer, Ram Ratan and Parshuram, whose affidavit in evidence was filed on 20.11.2017, has been dismissed by the trial court for the reason that eighteen adjournments had already been granted on the plaintiffs askance and another one for the reason propagated, illness of the plaintiffs daughter-in-law was not made (2 of 2) [CW-4379/2018] as no proof thereof was presented before the trial court. I am of the considered view that if this Court were to interfere in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction with the orders of the trial court, such as the one impugned, closing the evidence of the litigating party for its incorrigibility despite eighteen adjournments, it would entail a complete break down of the machinery for the administration of justice. No perversity or illegality in the facts of the case can be attributed to the impugned order. In-fact the impugned order is in line with proviso to Order
17 Rule 1 CPC as also the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Cotex Vs. Trigun Auto Plast (P) Ltd. [(2011)9 SCC 678] wherein the Apex Court has held that adjournments should ordinarily be limited to three/ four times in the life of the suit. There is no force in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. (ALOK SHARMA) J.