Judgment : Heard Shri R. Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri S. Chopdekar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents no.1 & 2. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 & 2 waives service. 3. Shri R. Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that respondent no.3 is a formal party and the suit is proceeding ex-parte against the said respondent before the learned trial Court and hence notice to said respondent no.3 may be dispensed with. 4. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Margao dated 20/06/2012 whereby an application for adjournment filed by the petitioner came to be rejected and, as such, the evidence of the petitioner who are defendants in the Regular Civil Suit no.186/2001/C came to be closed. 5. Shri R. Menezes, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that the petitioner is 84 years of age and as he was unable to come to the Court for his personal deposition the Commissioner was appointed to record his evidence. The learned Counsel further pointed out that successively attempts were made to record the evidence of the petitioner on commission. The learned Counsel further pointed out that on the last occasion the Commissioner who proceeded to record the evidence of the said petitioner found that the petitioner was not in a position to depose and, as such, after recording part of the evidence the report was submitted to the learned Judge on that count. The learned Counsel further pointed out that on the relevant date the petitioner sought an adjournment as he wanted to examine the report of the Commissioner but the learned Judge declined to grant such relief. The learned Counsel as such submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner desires to examine oral evidence in the suit in support of the defence raised by the petitioner in his written statement. 6. On the other hand, Shri S. Chopdekar, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 & 2 has strongly opposed the above petition. 6. On the other hand, Shri S. Chopdekar, the learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 & 2 has strongly opposed the above petition. The learned Counsel pointed out that the matter is pending for quite a long time on account of inaction on the part of the petitioner to proceed with the evidence of the petitioner. The learned Counsel has pointed out that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to take steps to examine the witness. The learned Counsel as such points out that there are several adjournments sought by the petitioner and as such the question of granting any further adjournment would not arise. The learned Counsel as such submits that the petition be rejected. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. It is not in dispute that the matter was posted on 14/06/2012 for taking further steps in the matter. The petitioner brought to the notice of the learned Judge on the said date that the report of the Commissioner has not been provided to him and as such they could not proceed with the evidence. The learned Judge whilst passing the impugned order has rejected the application for adjournment and proceeded to close the evidence of the petitioner and fixed the matter for final arguments. 8. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 2000(8) SCC 532 in the case of State Bank of India v. Chandra Govindji, has held at paragraph 7 thus:- In ascertaining whether a party had reasonable opportunity to put forward his case or not, one should not ordinarily go beyond the date on which adjournment is sought for. The earlier adjournment, if any, granted would certainly be for reasonable grounds and that aspect need not be once again examined if on the date on which adjournment is sought for the party concerned has a reasonable ground. The mere fact that in the past adjournments had been sought for would not be of any materiality. If the adjournment had been sought for on flimsy grounds the same would have been rejected. Therefore, in our view, the High Court as well as the learned District Judge and the Rent Controller have all missed the essence of the matter. The mere fact that in the past adjournments had been sought for would not be of any materiality. If the adjournment had been sought for on flimsy grounds the same would have been rejected. Therefore, in our view, the High Court as well as the learned District Judge and the Rent Controller have all missed the essence of the matter. Considering the said judgment of the Apex Court , this Court finds that the past conduct of the petitioner would not be material to find out whether the petitioner was entitled for an adjournment on a particular day. In the present case, it is not in dispute that prior to 14/06/2012, the matter was fixed before the Commissioner for recording of evidence of the petitioner. Considering that the petitioner was infirm and was unable to proceed with the recording of the evidence the Commissioner felt it fit to return to the matter. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that the petitioner is of 84 years of age and apparently appears to be disabled, I find in the interest of justice that the learned Judge should have given another opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence. At this stage, Shri R. Menezes, the learned Counsel pointed out that he shall make efforts to make the petitioner available to record his evident in the Court and examine one more witness. As such, it would be open to the petitioner to examine the petitioner no.1 in person before the Court and examine any one of the witnesses. Considering the past conduct of the petitioner in delaying the proceedings, as sought to be contended by the learned Counsel appearing for respondents no.1 & 2, I find that granting liberty to the petitioner to lead evidence would be subject to costs. Such costs are quantified to Rs.5,000/-as condition precedent. 10. In view of the above, I pass the following order: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 20/06/2012 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The petitioner is permitted to examine petitioner and/or one more witness in support of his case in Regular Civil Suit No.186/2001/C subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-to the respondents no.1 & 2 as condition precedent. (iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (iv) Petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.