Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS petition, at the instance of the defendant, seeks the quashing of the order dated 19th September, 2003 by which the Judge, Court of Small Causes rejected the application filed by the defendant for adjournment and closed the evidence. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 29th January, 2004 by which the Revision filed by the petitioner for setting aside the aforesaid order was dismissed.
(2.) THE sole reason assigned by the Courts below for rejecting the adjournment application filed by the defendant is that under Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only three adjournments can be granted and since in the instant case the defendant had sought more than three adjournments, it was not possible to grant any further adjournment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before the Court the judgment rendered by this Court in Pushpa Devi & Anr. v. Vinay Kumar & Ors.,, 2006 (8) ADJ 603 wherein this Court, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, : AIR 2005 SC 3353 held that the provisions of Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not mandatory in nature and the Court on sufficient cause being shown and for sufficient reason being recorded can grant adjournment on payment of cost.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has submitted that the suit was filed in the year 1980 and even though the application was rejected in the year 2003, further proceedings in the suit could not take place because of the stay order granted by the Court and, therefore, the plaintiffs should be compensated by imposing costs and a further direction should be issued for deciding the SCC Suit expeditiously.;