Gurpreet Kaur & Others v. Surinder Singh & Others
!"# #$%&%'( )*+*##",!)*!'-".#*& / #"%"%'#*& 0#*&)& 1)*%'-#*1%'2.!'-".#*& / #&+'-#'"& ( 34 10, 54
!"
#### 0, 546 4 !!
%& !% ' ( ))* +* ,-. / 0 / )
"
%'
!% &/ +123- !!
%& !% '/ !
$
0 ( 45%6!%02
0 , !!
%& !% ' ) 0 2 1 72! 8
5 %5 !% ' ( / / / "
%'
!% &
-29
.
(
9
/
:
/ / ( ) 0 / ;
0 ( 0
( ;
(
) (
( 0
0 9
< ) 9
! " " ! # $ < ) % "
& ' (
)*
!+, -,! $ #" .
$ /! " " !
01 )
2 3!+, -,!
"
9
( '
/ !% 4 = !% 4 0
!%
-3-
> !!
%& !% ' / / 2 ?5 6 ( ' 8 ' 88 8 ''( 8 .
7 8 ( 9* + 71 + 7 ( ( 8(
, + +
( '8 ( 86 71
4 4
$ 7 ( 8 ' 88 ( 9* : & !% %!
!% ' 0
)
/ 1 / ;
/ / = ( !!
%& !% ' / < /
2 1 728
) 9 ) ) (
( > ' ) ) 5%& + @))A- / <
/ ) ( (
< / <
( $
/ ( ( /
</ ;/ <
/( $ )9 / /
-4-
7
+ - /
/ ( / ) > ' 6+ -)) $
< / ( B )/ ;
) $ ;
) )
88 )9
$ ) 9 / < ;
) / (
C ;
/ ( <* 7'
, '
( ( .7 (
8 + ( 7'( *7' * &
. 8( ,
9 1 9 * ' 88
9 &
9 8 ( 0 +
9 97 8 ' = > ' 88 7
88( ( 7 88( ''
*
' 88
' ( ( ''
8 (
( 9 8
+ 87 ?* 4
2
(( ( 8
7
8 ' 88@ ( 9 8
* ( +
9* 6 ( (((7 ( => ( 9
.
7 8
.
7 7 *9 ( 1 '
= ( 9 '
(
( 8 (
' *
( + (
1 ( 8 += > 9
1 & ( & .
7 ' 8 > ( + .
' & ( 8
((
< 8 ( *
-5- .
7 ' * 8 7
'
( >
' ('
7'( *7' * ( 9*
''
( ( 7'
7* 8 ( ( 8 ( 7'( *7' * > 7 ( 9 (
*. ( **
7 A .
7 88((* 8.(' ( 8 7 (
( <
* '9(7* 8
*
7
( ' (* ( 7 *
8 ( ' 1 '(
2
9 ' ( ' .
7 +1 (( (
9 * 8. ( **
7> (' .
7
' * 8 ' '
B C>> "
7
* 9 ( . 89 ( ( 7* 7
.
7
' *8 ( 9 * ('' '
B C>>" 9 7 6 + * D. 89 ( @+ + 7
*( +(
*D88( ( @(
7'
9& ! 8 B C>> 9 ( +( 71 < 8 .
7 9*' * 8 9 *
.
7 9 8 ( 7'
( *1 8 +
+* E 87* 8* 8 7E (7 *1 8
<1
( + * 8
'
E(( + +* +*
( (1 ( The list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the absence of the lawyer or his non-availability because of professional work in other court or elsewhere or on the
-6ground of strike call or the change of a lawyer or the continuous illness of the lawyer (the party whom he represents must then make alternative arrangement well in advance) or similar grounds will not justify more than three adjournments to a party during the hearing of the suit. The past conduct of a party in the conduct of the proceedings is an important circumstance which the courts must keep in view whenever a request for adjournment is made. A party to the suit is not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure and pleasure and has no right to determine when the evidence would be let in by it or the matter should be heard. The parties to a suit - whether plaintiff or defendant - must cooperate with the court in ensuring the effective work on the date of hearing for which the matter has been fixed.
If they don't, they do so at their own peril. Insofar as present case is concerned, if the stakes were high, the plaintiff ought to have been more serious and vigilant in prosecuting the suit and producing its evidence. If despite three opportunities, no evidence was let in by the plaintiff, in our view, it deserved no sympathy in second appeal in exercise of power under Section 100 CPC. We find no justification at all for the High Court in upsetting the concurrent judgment of the courts below. The High Court was clearly in error in giving the plaintiff an opportunity to produce evidence when no justification for that course existed.
( < < 8 0 7 (
/ 81
/ D( (
(
/
-78 / / (: E
(/ ( 0 / / ( / )/ /8 !
9/
/ / (
9 ( ( +- (
0, 54 !7 6
8
8 0 F0 F0