JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 14.5.1977 passed in Civil Appeal no. 22 of 1977. 2. The plaintiff appellant filed suit no. 759 of 1964 for specific performance of the agreement dated 9.7.63 on the ground that an agreement had been executed on 9th July, 1963 by the deceased Pati Ram who owned half share in the sirdari holdings details of which are described at the foot of the plaint, situated in district Agra. Under the agreement, earnest money was paid, but as the sale deed had not been executed in pursuance of the agreement, the suit was filed for specific performance. The suit was dismissed on 20th May, 1966 by an order saying : "180 C by plaintiff that witnesses were summoned through court but they have not been served. On previous date adjournment was taken on the ground that witnesses were out of station. The plaintiff could have taken dasti summons case is very old. It appears that plaintiff is reluctant to proceed with the case. No ground to adjourn case. Suit is dismissed with costs for non-prosecution." 3. Against this order, the plaintiff filed a revision. Thereafter, he got it converted into an appeal. The appeal was heard by the learned District Judge and was dismissed by the impugned order by finding that there were no merits in the same. The court below held that the plaintiff had taken 20 adjournments on one ground or the other. The plaintiff did not even examine himself on the date fixed for final hearing. Having thus found that no ground existed, the appeal was dismissed by the impugned judgment, dated 14.5.77. After dismissal of the appeal, review application was filed which was rejected by the order dated 8.8.1977. 4. In this appeal, the contention raised by the appellant was that the trial court was not justified in dismissing the suit as justice required that one more opportunity should have been given to the plaintiff to bring the witnesses. Justice has been done in accordance with law. In this case, liberal view had been taken by the trial court which was not justified in the circumstances. He taken 20 adjournments to enable him to produce the witnesses. But that was not done. Justice has been done in accordance with law. In this case, liberal view had been taken by the trial court which was not justified in the circumstances. He taken 20 adjournments to enable him to produce the witnesses. But that was not done. At least, the plaintiff could have appeared in the witness box on 20th May, 1977 and proved the agreement. The plaintiff did not do so. It is not the pleasure of the party to prolong the hearing of the case as long as he desires. 5. In the appeal, the learned counsel urged that the appellate court wrongly observed that as many as 20 adjournments had been taken by the plaintiff. What he contended was that the number of adjournments was 13. I did not go into the question as to whether the plaintiff had taken 20 adjournments or 14. Thirteen adjournments are too bad which could have been justified by the plaintiff. The Court below in the circumstances of the present case, had no alternative but to dismiss the suit. 6. Appeal fails and is dismissed.