Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant.
(2.) IN this second appeal, the appellant is seeking indulgence of the Court on the ground that appellant's -defendant's evidence was closed by the trial Court on second occasion only. After decree when appellant raised grievance against the closure of evidence of the appellant, the first Appellate Court refused to set aside the decree in spite of the fact that appellant's evidence was closed on second occasion only. According to learned Counsel for the appellant it had resulted into grave injustice to the appellant -defendant. Learned Counsel for the appellant even requested this Court to issue direction to the appellant to furnish the grounds why he did not appear on the second occasion in the trial Court when case was fixed for his evidence.
(3.) THE facts of the case are peculiar because of the reason that appellantdefendant's whose evidence was closed on second occasion by the trial Court wants to challenge the order of the trial Court without showing any reason either before the trial Court or before the first appellate Court or even before second appellate Court under impression that all the presumptions should be drawn in favour of the person, who was negligent in performing his duties in Court proceedings and under assumption that even if party does not give any reason for his fault or absence even then Court should ask the party why he defaulted. Contrary to it, the law as provided in the Civil Procedure Code specifically provides that Court is required to record reason for adjourning the case. Therefore, the contention of the appellant runs just opposite to the statutory provisions for grant of adjournments. It is very easy to make prayer for indulgence with folded hands, but the Court should if will be benovalent to such negligent persons, which may even result into benovalence towards an unwilling person in contesting the suit in fact is a harassest attitude towards the person, who wants justice in time.;