JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Code') is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13th April, 1989, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Bharatpur (Camp Bayana) in Civil Suit No. 75/86. The brief facts of the case are as under : 2. The plaintiff-respondent had instituted a suit against the appellant-defendant on 16-10-84 with the allegations that the appellant-defendant had borrowed from him a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 20-10-81 for business purposes and had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 1.5% per month and had made an entry in this regard in his Account-book and also that the appellant-defendant had needed a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the same purpose and had borrowed the same amount on 18-12-83 at the same rate of interest and had made an entry in the plaintiff's Account-book for this amount as well. The plaintiff alleged that no amount against the above said loans or interest had been paid by the defendant-appellant and prayed that the decree for the suit amount of Rs. 26,818.35 paisa, including the interest of Rs. 6,818.35 paisa, be passed in his favour against the defendant-appellant with pendente lite and future interest. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant who denied having taken loan from the plaintiff and also pleaded that the plaintiff was a money-lender and has been carrying on business without obtaining the licence for that purpose and further that the document on the basis of which suit had been filed was not admissible in evidence. The learned trial Court recorded the statement of the defendant under Order 10 of the Code on 20th September, 1986 and framed issues on 1st April, 1987 after the documents were admitted and denied by the parties. The case was thereafter adjourned to 16-5-1986 for the evidence of the defendant, who filed an application on 15th April, 1987 for summoning certain witnesses, who were summoned from 16-5-76 by the office of the learned trial Court. The defendant-appellant, however, filed an application under Rule 2 of Order 13 of the Code on 16-5-87, praying that he be allowed to place on record certified copies of 6 documents and the said application was allowed vide order dated 16-5-87, subject to payment of Rs. The defendant-appellant, however, filed an application under Rule 2 of Order 13 of the Code on 16-5-87, praying that he be allowed to place on record certified copies of 6 documents and the said application was allowed vide order dated 16-5-87, subject to payment of Rs. 75/- as cost and the case was adjourned to 28th May, 1987 for payment of cost. On 28th May, 1987, the learned Presiding Officer was not holding the Court and as such the case was adjourned to 10th July, 1987, for payment of cost. On 10th July, 1987, the cost was paid by the defendant-appellant and the documents filed on record given as exhibit marks by the Court adjourned the case to 3rd September, 1987. On 5th August, 1987, the defendant-appellant moved an application for summoning the files of some decided cases from the courts mentioned therein so that those files could be utilised at the time of evidence. The said application came up before the Court on the same day i.e. 5-8-87 when the learned Presiding Officer directed that it should be put up on the next date of hearing i.e. 3-9-87. On 3-9-87, proxy counsel appeared on behalf of the learned counsel for the defendant and pointed out to the Court that the files had not been summoned as prayed in the application dated 5-8- 87 and as such the evidence could not be recorded. The learned trial Court observed, that there was no ground for not producing any evidence and as such closed the evidence of the defendant-appellant and adjourned the case for recording the evidence of the respondent-plaintiff. After recording the statement of the plaintiff-respondent, the learned trial Court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant-appellant for the suit amount with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal sum of Rs. 20,000/-. Hence this appeal by the defendant-appellant. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. 4. The record clearly shows that the first date for evidence was fixed as 16-5-87 and the defendant-appellant had filed an application well in time for summoning the witnesses for the date of hearing and the witnesses had, in fact been summoned for the said date by the office of the learned trial Court. 4. The record clearly shows that the first date for evidence was fixed as 16-5-87 and the defendant-appellant had filed an application well in time for summoning the witnesses for the date of hearing and the witnesses had, in fact been summoned for the said date by the office of the learned trial Court. In order to prove the issues, the burden of which had been placed on the appellant-defendant, he had filed certified copies of certain documents and had prayed that he be allowed to place the same on record before the evidence is recorded. The learned trial Court allowed the application but did not record any evidence nor did it mentioned that the witnesses had not been served or were not present despite service and simply adjourned the case for payment of cost. After the cost had been paid the case was adjourned for evidence to 3-9-87 and much before the next date of hearing, the application for summoning the files had been filed by the appellant-defendant and the said application came before the learned trial Court on 5-8-87 and on that day, no order was passed either for summoning of the files for that date or for issuing the notice of the application to the respondent-plaintiff but it simply directed that the application should be put up on the next date of hearing i.e. 3-9-87. The application dated 5-8-87 had been moved with a view to get the files for .the purpose of statements of the witnesses and as noted above the appellant had already submitted process for procuring the attendance of the witnesses. The learned trial Court without disposing of the said application and without looking to the record which showed that the appellant had taken steps for procuring the attendance of the witnesses had declined to adjourn the matter and had closed the evidence. Rule 1 of the Order 17 of the Code gives a discretion to the Court to adjourn the matter if sufficient cause is shown. Rule 1 of the Order 17 of the Code gives a discretion to the Court to adjourn the matter if sufficient cause is shown. It was not only that the appellant's application for summoning the files was pending and had not been disposed of by the learned trial Court and as such the appellant could say that in absence of the order for summoning the files, he could not produce the witnesses but the learned Presiding Officer also failed to take notice of the fact that even the appellant had furnished process for summoning the witnesses for the earlier date when the statements were not recorded or when their presence or absence was not even mentioned in spite of the fact that summons had been sent by the office. The learned Presiding Officer appears to have punished the appellant for the lapse on his own part in not passing any order on the application dated 5-8-87 and without even noticing the fact that the appellant had taken steps for summoning the witnesses tor the date earlier fixed for that purpose. In this view of the matter the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court in closing the evidence of the appellant cannot be said to be judicial and the impugned decree having been passed aster wrongful closing the evidence of the appellant, it cannot be allowed to stand. 5. Consequently I accept this appeal, set aside the impugned decree and judgment and remand the case to the learned trial Court for deciding the application dated 5-8-87 and giving opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence. The cost of this appeal would abide by the decision of the case. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 6. At this stage Shri Agrawal has submitted that the appellant had furnished the .security bond in compliance with the stay order passed by this Court and has prayed that it be discharged. In view of the fact that the decree passed by the learn trial Court has been set aside, the security bond furnished by the appellant stands discharged.Appeal accepted. *******