ORDER : 1. The facts leading to this petition are that one Shivlal died leaving two sons Korji and Satan. The latter instituted a suit in respect of family property. The defendant set up a plea of partition in the year 1928 A.D. 2. The plaintiff closed his case on 18th June 1948. The case was fixed for defence evidence on 07-07-1948 and the defendant was asked to file his list of witnesses (presumably if he wanted summonses to issue) within two days. On 7th July 1948, the pleaders for the defendant were present and a petition for adjournment was tendered on behalf of the defendant. The learned Munsiff rejected it purporting to act under O.17, R.3, Civil Procedure Code and fixed the case for arguments on 15th July 1948. An application was made on that day for examination of the defendant himself, but this too was rejected and the case again adjourned to 22nd July 1948. 3. The Court has jurisdiction to decide the suit forthwith if there is such default by a party as is contemplated in O.17, R.3, Civil Procedure Code and such a decision is one from which an appeal lies and is therefore not open to revision, but rather than decide the suit the lower Court adjourned the case on two dates, and the order shutting out the evidence for the defence appears to have been more by way of a penalty than adherence to procedure. I would observe that rules of procedure are intended to promote justice and the discretion given by law must be exercised not on arbitrary and fanciful grounds but on grounds of reason. It was therefore proper when the petition for an adjournment was made on 'the ground of illness to have made an inquiry. It is not always possible for persons in the mufasil to obtain medical certificates and if the lower Court had any doubt in the matter a certificate or affidavit should have been called for in support of the petition. The defendant had been asked to file a list of his witnesses and he should have done so, but it may be possible that he may have counted on keeping his witnesses present, and was prevented by illness from doing so. The defendant had been asked to file a list of his witnesses and he should have done so, but it may be possible that he may have counted on keeping his witnesses present, and was prevented by illness from doing so. In any case his petition was that he could not be present himself and it was a wrong exercise of discretion to have shut his statement out and even at the next hearing denied his examination of himself though eventually the case was adjourned sue motu. 4. Ordinarily this Court is loth to interfere in interlocutory orders, but where the exercise of jurisdiction or failure to exercise it results or is likely to result in gross injustice or irreparable injury, interference ex debito justitica becomes necessary. A Full Bench consisting of seven Judges of the Lahore High Court held that such a matter would be a "case decided" within the meaning of S.115, Civil Procedure Code and with this view I am in respectful agreement. I have given an anxious consideration to the question of the order I should make in the circumstances. In the ordinary course the case ought to go back for an inquiry as to the petitioner's plea of illness as a ground for his absence, but the case has taken a long time in the lower Court and I think the interests of justice would be better secured by allowing the evidence for the defendant. 5. I accept the petition and remit the case to the lower Court for disposal after giving an opportunity to tender evidence material to the case. The defendant must avail himself of the opportunity given and see that there is no default on his part in future. In the circumstances, I direct that parties should bear their own costs.