JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Both the revision petitions are against the orders passed by the learned trial Judge in the same civil suit. It is therefore, proper to dispose of both the petitions together. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner Smt. Surdashna Kumari filed a suit against the non-petitioner for eviction on the ground of personal necessity. During the pendency of the suit, the plaint was amended and by amendment, it was pleaded that the petitioner wanted the suit premises for her son Rakesh, who wanted to set up a shop. After the framing of the issues, the petitioner-plaintiff was permitted to lead her evidence. Before the petitioner's evidence was closed, she moved another application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code praying that she should be permitted to further amend her plaint Section as to be able to plead therein that she require the suit premises for the purpose of setting up a chemists shop by her second son Sunil. On 5th July, 97, the learned trial Judge heard the counsels for both the parties regarding the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code and rejected the same. Revision Petition No. 743/97 is directed against the order dated 5th July, 97. 4. While rejecting the petitioner's application filed under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code by order dated 5th July, 97, the learned trial Judge directed that the case be listed on 17th July, 97 for the plaintiff's-petitioner's evidence. It was observed that last chance was being given to the petitioner-plaintiff for her evidence. On 17-7-97, an application was moved on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner that the case should be adjourned as the plaintiff wanted to file a revision petition against the order dated 5th July, 97 and on account of the death of a distinct relative, the evidence could not be produced. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the plaintiff-petitioner's application dated 17-7-97 for adjournment of hearing was rejected by the learned trial Judge on the ground that no revision petition had been filed against the order dated 5-7-97 and that the case was an old one pending for the last 11 years and no order for stay of the proceedings had been passed by the High Court. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 17-7-97, the plaintiff-petitioner has filed the revision petition No. 742/97. 5. I will first of all take up the revision petition No. 743/97 challenging the order dated 5th July, 97 passed by the learned trial Judge. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the suit, Sunil, second son of the petitioner left the job as Medical Representative and he wanted to set up a chemical shop and the necessity of a shop for establishing Sunil Kumar occurred after the filing of the plaint. This necessity was in the nature of an event which occurred subsequent to the filing of the plaint and the petitioner had no alternative but to apply under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code to bring on record this subsequent event. It is also submitted by him that in view of the fact that the necessity of a shop for Sunil Kumar occurred subsequent to the filing of the plaint, it was necessary for the learned trial Judge to have taken into consideration this necessity and allow the amendment sought by the petitioner, irrespective of the amendment sought earlier on account of the necessity of the shop for the other son Rakesh Kumar. It is also submitted by the learned (sic) amendments, which can be allowed by the Court under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code is not limited and as and when an application is moved under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, it has to be disposed of on merits and such an application could not have been rejected on the ground that the amendment of a plaint had been allowed on an earlier occasion. Regarding the necessity of filing an affidavit along with the application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that such an affidavit is not a legal necessity and the application could not have been rejected on the ground that the affidavit had not been filed. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order dated 5th July, 97 passed by the learned trial Judge. 7. I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order dated 5th July, 97 passed by the learned trial Judge. 7. I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case. In the instant case, the application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code was moved by the landlord-plaintiff, who had filed a suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity. The petitioner-plaintiff, therefore, cannot be attributed the intention to prolong the litigation by filing an unnecessary application for amendment. In a case of this kind, where the landlord files a suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessity, the landlord's interest would be best served in early disposal of the suit rather than delay in the disposal of the same. I am therefore, of the opinion that the application filed by the petitioner could not be regarded as mala fide or calculated to delay the proceedings. If the necessity of the suit premises for establishing Sunil Kumar arose subsequent to the filing of the plaint, the petitioner could not be blamed for it. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the only course for the petitioner was to move an application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code and it is this course, which was adopted by the petitioner. I am therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order dated 5th July, 97 passed by the learned trial Judge rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code must be set aside and the petitioner's application should be allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 5th July, 97 is set aside and petitioner's application for amendment of the plaint is allowed. The petitioner is given 15 days time to file amended plaint in accordance with the General Rules (Civil). After the filing of the amended plaint, the suit shall be heard and decided in accordance with law. 8. The second revision petition No. 742/97 is against the order dated 17th July, 97, whereby the petitioner's application for adjournment of hearing was rejected and her evidence was closed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 17-7-97 the petitioner could not produce her evidence on account of the death of the distinct relative. 8. The second revision petition No. 742/97 is against the order dated 17th July, 97, whereby the petitioner's application for adjournment of hearing was rejected and her evidence was closed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 17-7-97 the petitioner could not produce her evidence on account of the death of the distinct relative. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner wanted to file a revision petition against the order dated 5th July, 97, the petitioner sought an adjournment, which ought to have been granted by the learned trial Judge. He has therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 17th July, 97 be set aside. 9. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner has supported the impugned order. 10. In the instant case, as soon as the petitioner had made up a mind to file a revision petition against the order dated 5-7-97, she ought to have filed an application for adjournment Section that in the event of rejection of her application, she could produce her evidence on the date of hearing fixed by the learned trial Judge. The importance of the dates of hearing fixed by the trial Courts cannot be over-estimated. The very object of fixing the dates of hearing is to apprise both the parties that the case would be heard on the date fixed by the Court and after that the trial Judge may arrange his own case diary in such a manner that time is spared for the hearing of the case. If the hearing of the case does not take place on the date fixed by the trial Court, serious consequences follow. The time and money of the opposite party is wasted; the diary of the counsel for the opposite party is also disturbed; the management of Court work by the Presiding Officer is also disturbed. It is therefore, necessary that if the cause for adjournment arises before the date of hearing fixed by the trial Court, the application for adjournment must be moved sufficiently in advance of the date fixed for hearing Section that in the event, the application is rejected, the Court may proceed with the hearing on the date already fixed by it and if the application for adjournment is allowed, the Court and the counsel for the other party may remanage their time and diary sufficiently in advance. Unfortunately, in this case, the petitioner waited till 17-7-97 to move her application for adjournment of the hearing. It was not proper. 11. The second ground for non-production of the evidence on 17-7-97 was that the death of a distinct relative. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge does not show that application for adjournment was accompanied by any affidavit. It also does not appear why the petitioner was prevented from producing her evidence. The applications for adjournment must contain facts necessary for the trial Court to form an opinion whether the prayer for adjournment is well founded or not. 12. In view of the above reasons, I would have dismissed this petition on the ground that the application for adjournment was neither supported by an affidavit nor it was moved sufficiently in advance of the date of hearing fixed by the trial Court. However, since I have allowed the revision petition No. 743/97, by which the application for amendment moved under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code has been allowed, it would be in the interest of justice if the impugned order dated 17th July, 97 is set aside, Section that after necessary amendment of the plaint, the case may be heard in accordance with law. Consequently, it is directed that if the amended plaint is filed as directed by this Court, nothing contained in the impugned order dated 17th July, 97 shall come in the way of the petitioner in the matter of production of her evidence in support of the ground, on which her suit for eviction is based. Both the petitions are decided accordingly.Petition allowed. *******