Judgment Heard Shri V.A. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of learned Counsel. 3. Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. 4. The above petition challenges the two orders passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji dated 09.07.2009 whereby an application filed by the petitioner for adjournment came to be rejected and the evidence of the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit came to be closed. Shri Lawande, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that though the petitioner had sought adjournments on earlier occasions nevertheless in view of the fact that some documents which were relied upon by the petitioner in another suit filed in the year 1988 were not traceable, the petitioner was forced to seek an adjournment on the relevant date. The learned Counsel further pointed out that PW1 who was supposed to be examined was sick on the date fixed for evidence and as such, the petitioner had a good ground to seek an adjournment on the relevant date. The learned Counsel further pointed out that he has also undertaken before the Trial Court to produce the medical certificate in support of his contention that PW1 was sick on the relevant date. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner has now obtained all the documents from the earlier proceedings and is in a position to lead evidence on any date as fixed by the Court. The learned Counsel further pointed out that grave prejudice shall occasion to the petitioner in case the impugned orders are not set aside as the suit filed by the petitioner would be liable to dismiss and irreparable injury would occasion to the petitioner. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner would pay any amount of costs as awarded by this Court to the respondent. 5. On the other hand, Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that whole exercise on the part of the petitioner is to delay the proceedings. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner has been seeking successive adjournments without any rhyme and reason only to delay the disposal of the suit. 5. On the other hand, Shri A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that whole exercise on the part of the petitioner is to delay the proceedings. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner has been seeking successive adjournments without any rhyme and reason only to delay the disposal of the suit. But however the learned Counsel does not dispute that an application was filed for adjournment stating inter-alia that PW1 was sick and that the petitioner has undertaken to produce the medical certificate. The learned Counsel further pointed out that in case this Court is inclined to interfere in the impugned orders, substantial costs are to be awarded to the respondent considering the conduct of the petitioner. 6. Having heard the learned counsel and on perusal of the records, I find that though the petitioner had been seeking adjournment on successive occasion as noted by the learned Judge in the impugned orders, nevertheless, on the relevant date, it appears that PW1 was sick. This aspect has not been disputed by the respondent. Apart from that, the petitioner has also stated that some documents relied upon by the petitioner were produced in the earlier proceedings filed in the year 1988 and that the file of the said suit was not traceable. But however taking into consideration the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner is now in a position to produce all the documents and in view of the assurance given by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner would not unnecessarily seek adjournment in the suit, I find that in the interest of justice, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be allowed to lead further evidence subject to payment of the costs to the respondent. The present order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case considering the fact that PW1 was sick on the relevant date and there was a justifiable reason referred to above for the petitioner not to proceed with the evidence on the particular date. 7. In view of the above, I pass the following : (i) The impugned orders dated 09.07.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji, are quashed and set aside. 7. In view of the above, I pass the following : (i) The impugned orders dated 09.07.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji, are quashed and set aside. (ii) The petitioner is permitted to lead evidence in the Regular Civil Suit No.78/2006/C pending before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Panaji, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-to the respondent as condition precedent. (iii) The learned Judge is directed to dispose of the said suit as expeditiously as possible. (iv) Rule is disposed of in above terms. (v) The parties are directed to appear before the learned Judge on 18.02.2012 at 10.00 a.m. and abide by its further directions.