Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, defendants in a civil suit, challenged an order of the Civil Judge Junior Division, Bhadrawati, dated 21 January 2009, rejecting their application for adjournment. The application was filed because their counsel had been summoned as a witness before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the same date. The trial judge rejected the application on the ground that the counsel being busy in another court is not a valid ground for adjournment. The High Court observed that while professional engagement in another court may not justify adjournment, being summoned as a witness is a different circumstance. The court held that the trial judge erred in equating the two situations and should have granted the adjournment. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the trial judge to afford an opportunity to the petitioners' counsel to proceed with the matter. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Adjournment - Counsel as witness - Section 151 CPC - Refusal of adjournment when counsel is busy as a witness in another court is not justified - The court held that the counsel being busy as a witness is a valid ground for adjournment, unlike professional engagement in another court (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether refusal of adjournment was justified when the counsel was summoned as a witness in another court.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21 January 2009 is quashed and set aside. The learned Judge may afford an opportunity to the learned counsel for the petitioner to proceed further with the matter. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Adjournment
- Counsel as witness
- Grounds for adjournment
- Civil Procedure Code
- 1908
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 336
WRIT PETITION NO. 1889 OF 2009
Shri Ujwal Deshpande h/f Shri A.S. Chandurkar for Petitioners, Shri V.A. Dhawas for Respondent No.2
Smt. Bhagerathabai Nanaji Zade and others
Smt. Anandabai Wd/o. Madhukar Pote and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging rejection of adjournment application in a civil suit.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the order dated 21 January 2009 rejecting adjournment and direction to grant opportunity to proceed.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the adjournment application despite counsel being summoned as a witness.
Previous Decisions
The Civil Judge Junior Division, Bhadrawati rejected the adjournment application on 21 January 2009 in Regular Civil Suit No.36 of 1999.
Issues
Whether refusal of adjournment was justified when the counsel was summoned as a witness in another court.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the counsel was summoned as a witness before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, which is a valid ground for adjournment.
Respondent No.2 opposed the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
When a counsel is summoned as a witness in another court, it is a valid ground for adjournment, unlike professional engagement in another court. The trial court erred in rejecting the adjournment application.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Judge is right in observing that the counsel being busy in another Court is no ground to seek adjournment. But this would apply when the counsel is professionally busy in another Court. Here, the counsel was busy as a witness and not as counsel and therefore, the learned Judge should have granted an adjournment.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court against the order of the Civil Judge Junior Division, Bhadrawati dated 21 January 2009 rejecting their adjournment application in Regular Civil Suit No.36 of 1999.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 151
