BASHIR AHMED versus MEHMOOD HUSSAIN SHAH.

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 812 · Decided: 20-03-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
BASHIR AHMED 
v. 
MEHMOOD HUSSAIN SHAH. 
MARCH 20, 1995 
(K RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Civil Procedure Code-Order 17, Rule 1, Sub-rules (1) and (2)-Ad-
journment-When can be granted and on what conditions. 
C 
Civil Procedure code-Proviso(d) to order 17 Rule 1(2}-lnterpretation 
of "in time"-Reasonable time to engage another counsel should be given. 
Suit for ejectment filed by the plaintiff was adjourned from time to 
time. On 8.8.94, due to lawyers' strike the matter was adjourned to 9.8.94. 
The counsel appearing for the appellant became ill and therefore, the 
D appellant prayed the court on 9.8.94 f~r adjournment and agreed to pa)' 
cost. The request of the appellant was declined and as the appellant was 
unable to cross-examine the Witness, the court ordered forfeiture of cross-
examination. 
· 
Appellant filed revision petition before the High Court which was 
E dismissed. 
Hence, this appeal by special leave. 
AlloWing the appeal, this court 
F 
HELD: 1. Order 17 Rule 1 indicates that protraction of trial or the 
suit should not be encouraged and the court shall try the suit as ex-
peditiously as possible. If the adjournment is occasioned on any sufficient 
ground, then it may, in an appropriate case, adjourn the matter to a 
shorter date asking the party seeking adjournment to pay costs incurred 
G by the party who got the Witnesses produced and was ready to proceed With 
trial. (814-G] 
2 (a) The words "in time" in clause (d) of the proviso to sub rule (2) 
of order 17 Rule 2 indicates that at least reasonable time may be given 
·when a counsel suddenly becomes unwell, There would be reasonable time 
H for the parties to make alternative. arrangement when sufficient time 
812 
i ' 
r 
\ 
' 
\ 
\ 
, 
' 
I 
r 
. ) 
BASHIR AHMED v. M.H. SHAH 
813 
intervenes between the last date of adjournment and the next date of trial. A 
In such a case, adjournment on the ground of counsel's ill health can be 
refused and the party would bear responsibility for his failure to make 
alternative arrrangements. (815-B] 
(b) The court was not right in refusing to adjourn the matter at least 
for the next day as the counsel for the appellant had to cross-examine the B 
respondent-plaintiff. 
Unless there is time for the new counsel to be 
engaged for application of his mind to pleadings, issues framed the 
evidence already on record, it would be difficult, for him to proceed with 
the cross- examination on the spur of moment. (815-G-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4035 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.94 of the Jammu & Kashmir 
High Court in C.R. No. 118 of 1994. 
S.P. Singh and Ashok Mathur for the Appellant. 
M.L. Bhat, Anant Palli and Ms. Purnima Bhat Kak for the Respon-
dent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
Leave granted. 
c 
D 
E 
We have heard· counsel on both sides. From the record, it would 
appear that a suit for ejectment was filed on October 3, 1988 and the matter F 
·was adjourned from time to time on one count or the other. On 8.8.94, 
while. the plaintiff was present in persop., due to death of an advocate, the 
advocates went on strike. As a consequence, the matter was adjourned to 
9.8.94. It would appear that since counsel appearing for the appellant was 
unwell, the appellant could not proceed with the cross-examination of the G 
respondent-plaintiff and sought for short adjournment and agreed to pay 
costs. Instead, the court directed the appellant to engage another lawyer 
for cross-examination of the plaintiff. Since he did not do so, the court 
ordered for forfeiture of cross- examination and proceeded with the mat-
~ 
. k 
814 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Calling in question the procedure adopted and the order passed by 
B 
c 
D 
E 
the trial court the appellant went in revision. The High Court by order 
dated 8.9.94 in CR No. 118/94 dismissed the revision. Thus this appeal by 
special leave. 
Order 17, Rule 1(1) provides that 
"The Court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the 
suit grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time 
to time adjourn the hearing of the suit". 
Sub-Rule (2) is relevant which reads : 
"Costs of adjournement - In every such case the court shall fix a 
day for the furthre hearing of the suit, and may make such order 
as it thinks fit with respect to the costs occasioned by the adjour-
nement: 
Provided that : 
(a) xxxxxxx:xxxxxxx 
(b) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
(c) xxxxxxxxxxxx

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.