1. This is a Civil First Appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 27th of Sept'08, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Bank Cases), Jammu. 2. Respondent instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 23,93,216.38, with interest pendentilite and future against the appellants in the court of learned Additional Judge (Bank Cases), Jammu, on 29th of Oct' 07. Appellants responded to the notice issued by the learned Trial Court and filed written statement on 17th of May'08, and denied the liability that was sought to be fastened on them by the respondent in the Suit. The learned Trial Court, in pursuance to the mandate of Order 10 of Civil Procedure Code, directed the appellants/defendants to appear in person so as to enable the court to examine them orally. When the appellants failed to appear in person, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment on 27th of Sept'08, under Order 10 Rule 4(2) of CPC. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considered the matter. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that on the date, the judgment was pronounced by the learned Trial Court, an application was filed on behalf of the appellants in which it was stated that the appearing counsel Mr. Abhinav Sharma, is unable to appear as he has to perform 'Sarad' ceremony on fourth death anniversary of his father and adjournment was sought. Learned counsel for the appellants invited attention of the court to the application which is part of Trial Court record to show that it was specifically pleaded at paragraph 2 of the application that Mr. Abhinav Sharma, counsel for the defendants is not in a position to come to the court to cause appearance in the case. Para 2 of the said application is taken note of:- "That since the counsel for the applicants Mr. Abhinav Sharma has to perform Sarad of his father as such is not in a position to come to the court to cause his appearance in the case listed for today, as such, instructed his client i.e. applicants to cause their appearance before this court on next date of hearing due to his non availability." Learned counsel submitted that since a just and lawful cause was put-forth for seeking adjournment, the learned Trial Court ought not to have pronounced the judgment. Learned counsel submitted that in the impugned order, though, reference is made to the applica tion filed by the appellants but, no reference is made to the cause which is projected in the said application for seeking adjournment. Learned counsel submitted that it is specifically stated in the impugned judgment that application has been filed. It is submitted by the counsel that the learned Trial Court, has acted illegally and the consequent judgment is also rendered illegal. Learned counsel further submitted that in terms of Rule 4(2) of Order 10 CPC, it was not mandatory for the learned Trial Judge to pronounce the judgment against the defendants/appellants and that it could have passed any other order also. Learned counsel, accordingly, prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that in view of the conduct of appellants, the learned Trial Judge was left with no oplion but to pronounce the judgment against them. Learned counsel further submitted that the purpose for examining the party/parties or their counsel under Order 10 CPC, is to narrow down the controversy raised in respective pleadings. Learned counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no option left with the learned Trial Judge but to pronounce the judgment against the appellants. In support of his submission, the learned counsel referred to a case titled Scwaram Udaji v. Munna Moti and another, reported in AIR 1959 MP 5 and case titled Vikas Aggarwal v. Anubha, AIR 2002 SC1796. Learned counsel, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the Appeal. 6. Sub Rule 2 of Rule 4 of Order 10 CPC, has to be read in conjunction not only with other provisions of Rule 10 but with other provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. Sub Rule 2 of Rule 4 of Order 10 CPC, is required to be considered to find out as to whether it is in consonance with the mandate 1 of Order 10 as also of other provisions of CPC. The issue, however, was not raised by the counsel for the appellants but only observation was made by the court to which learned counsel for the respondent responded. This issue is required to be considered as and when the same is raised. 7. This appeal, however, has to be allowed on the following grounds:- 1. The issue, however, was not raised by the counsel for the appellants but only observation was made by the court to which learned counsel for the respondent responded. This issue is required to be considered as and when the same is raised. 7. This appeal, however, has to be allowed on the following grounds:- 1. Admittedly, an application was filed on behalf of the appellants in which it was stated that the appearing counsel Mr Abhinav Sharma, was unable to appear on the date impugned judgment was pronounced for the reason that he had to perform the annual rites of his deceased father. This was a just and lawful cause for adjourning the case. The learned Trial Court, though, has referred to the application filed on behalf of appellants but has not dealt with the ground which was projected therein for seeking adjournment of the case. The learned Trial Court has, thus, committed serious illegality in pronouncing the impugned judgment. The judgments cited at Bar proceed on their own facts which are materially different from the case on hand. 8. Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dt. 27th of Sept'08, passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside. Learned Trial Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law. 9. Parties to appear before the Trial Court on 14th of Feb'12. Record be sent back.