JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Dessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents no.2, 3(a) to 3(f). 2. Mr. Dessai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, seeks leave to delete the names of respondents no. 4 and 5 from the cause title of the petition. Leave granted as prayed for. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith. 4. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 09/10/2013 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Margao ('Trial Court') in Regular Civil Suit No. 157/2005/E and to allow the application dated 09/10/2013 and permit the petitioner to lead further evidence. 5. Facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are as under: The petitioner, who is plaintiff no.5 and the other plaintiffs have filed the said Regular Civil Suit No.157/2005/E before the Trial Court for recovery of possession and Permanent Injunction and for other reliefs. In the said suit, respondents no.1 to 7 filed their written statement contending that they are mundkars in respect of the suit house. As per the rival contentions of the parties, issues have been framed by the Trial Court on 09/04/2010. In November, 2010, the plaintiffs filed before the Trial Court an affidavit-in-evidence of PW-1. On 23/02/2011, PW-1 was partly cross-examined and thereafter, on 14/03/2011, the cross-examination of PW-1 was completed. On 27/06/2011, the plaintiffs filed an application, under Order VII, Rule 14 of C. P. C., before the Trial Court for leave to produce the documents namely, inspection reports dated 21/05/2010 and 22/04/2011 relating to the alleged illegal extensions carried out to the suit structure existing in the suit property, which reports were prepared by one Engineer namely Shri P. B. Noronha and by order dated 26/12/2012, the learned Trial Court rejected the application holding that the said reports do not show the premises at loco as on the date of filing of the suit and, therefore, the same would cause prejudice to the defendants. The petitioner approached this Court by Writ Petition No.140/2013 against the aid order dated 26/12/2012. This Court by oral judgment dated 27/06/2013 set aside the said order and granted leave to the plaintiffs to rely upon the said reports by keeping open all the objections with regard to the correctness of the reports. 6. The petitioner approached this Court by Writ Petition No.140/2013 against the aid order dated 26/12/2012. This Court by oral judgment dated 27/06/2013 set aside the said order and granted leave to the plaintiffs to rely upon the said reports by keeping open all the objections with regard to the correctness of the reports. 6. On 30/09/2013, the plaintiffs furnished a copy of the affidavit-in-evidence of the said Engineer to the learned Counsel for defendants no.1 to 7. The matter was fixed for evidence of the Engineer on 09/10/2013, on which day, the plaintiffs filed an application for time on the ground that the Engineer is out of station and is unable to attend. By impugned order, the said application for adjournment has been rejected. 7. The Trial Court has observed that the Civil Procedure Code provides for in all three adjournments and each can be granted during the hearing of the suit to both the parties and not for each stage of the suit under Order XVII, Rule 1 of C.P.C. The submission of learned Counsel for the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs deserve further opportunity for recording evidence of PW-2 as no adjournment was sought with regard to the evidence of PW-2, has been held to be not tenable and it has been held that the same is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The Trial Court further observed that the records show that so far 21 adjournments were granted to the plaintiffs to complete the evidence on its side and the plaintiffs examined only PW1 and this is much more than the opportunities available to the party. The plaintiffs' evidence was closed. Plaintiff no.5 has filed the present petition against this order. 8. Mr. Dessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff no. 5, submitted that this Court had permitted the plaintiffs to produce and rely upon the reports of the Engineer and the said Engineer was sought to be examined as PW-2, who due to some reasons, was unable to attend the court on 09/10/2013. He submitted that in the application for adjournment, the plaintiffs had specifically stated that the said Engineer was out of station and, therefore, could not attend. He pointed out from the impugned order that there is absolutely no reason given by the learned Trial Court as to why the ground for adjournment as stated by the plaintiffs, was not believed. He submitted that in the application for adjournment, the plaintiffs had specifically stated that the said Engineer was out of station and, therefore, could not attend. He pointed out from the impugned order that there is absolutely no reason given by the learned Trial Court as to why the ground for adjournment as stated by the plaintiffs, was not believed. He submitted that only on the past conduct, the plaintiffs' evidence could not have been closed. He also submitted that the Trial Court, at the most, could have awarded costs. He, therefore, urged that the impugned order be quashed and set aside. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3a to 3f submitted that about 21 adjournments were granted to the plaintiffs in the past. He further submitted that no list of witnesses was filed by the plaintiffs and that no leave to examine the Engineer was sought for by the plaintiffs before the Trial Court, in terms of Order XVI Rule 1 of C.P.C.. According to the learned counsel, casual statement regarding inability of the witness to attend the Court was made. He further submitted that no application for summoning the witness was made by the plaintiffs. He relied upon the following judgments : (i) Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Limited, [ (2001)8 SCC 97 ]. (ii) ShivCotex Vs. Tirgun Auto Plast Pvt. Ltd and others, [ (2011)9 SCC 678 ]. (iii) M/s. M. M. Corporation Vs. The Juhu Vile Parle Development, [2010 All M R (supp.) 583] He submitted that no case has been at all made out by the plaintiffs and that the impugned order cannot at all be termed as perverse. He, therefore, urged that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. In rejoinder, Mr. Dessai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff no.5, submitted that the ground that no list of witnesses was filed or that no application for leave to examine the Engineer was filed or that the provision of Order XVI of C.P.C. was not complied with were not at all taken by the defendants for opposing the application and the same have not been considered by the Trial Court. According to him, therefore, the defendants cannot raise such grounds in this Petition. He further contended that the said provision of Order XVI of C.P.C. is procedural in nature. 11. According to him, therefore, the defendants cannot raise such grounds in this Petition. He further contended that the said provision of Order XVI of C.P.C. is procedural in nature. 11. I have gone through the material on record. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. I have also gone through the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for respondents no. 2, 3 to 3f. 12. By oral judgment dated 27/06/2013 passed in Writ Petition No.140/2013, this Court had granted leave to the plaintiffs to rely upon and to produce the reports dated 21/05/2010 and 22/04/2011 prepared by the said Engineer Shri P. B. Noronha. In such circumstances, insofar as the production and proof of said reports are concerned, the question of going into the past history and considering as to how many adjournments were sought by the plaintiffs, previously, does not arise. When leave was granted by this Court to rely upon the reports of the Engineer, it goes without saying that leave was granted to prove the said reports which can be done only by examining the maker of the reports namely said Engineer Mr. P. B. Noronha. In the impugned order, the learned Trial Court has not stated that no leave was taken for examining PW-2 or that provisions of Order XVI have not been complied with. Rule 1-A of Order XVI provides that subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule-1, any party to the suit may, without applying for summons under Rule-1, bring any witness to give evidence or to produce documents. In the application for adjournment filed on 09/10/2013, the plaintiffs had specifically alleged that the Engineer was out of station and was, therefore, unable to attend the Court on that date and that in the interest of justice, time be granted. That was the first date on which the evidence of the said Engineer was fixed to be recorded. It can be easily understood that securing the presence of the said Engineer was not wholly in the hands of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs had to depend upon the availability of the said witness. In the impugned order, there is absolutely no mention about the said ground stated for seeking adjournment. There is nothing in the impugned order to show as to how the said ground was not believable. The impugned order is, therefore, harsh and arbitrary. 13. In the impugned order, there is absolutely no mention about the said ground stated for seeking adjournment. There is nothing in the impugned order to show as to how the said ground was not believable. The impugned order is, therefore, harsh and arbitrary. 13. In the case of “M/s. M. M. Corporation” (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court has observed thus : “In the present case, no list of witnesses was filed under Rule-1 of Order 16, no application for leave to examine the witness which was named in the list of witnesses was made to the Court. As such, the Court was not required to adjourn the matter. Yet, in the interest of justice, the Court granted adjournments on several occasions to give an opportunity to the plaintiff to examine person who was not named as a witness in the witness list. The suit is 5 years old and was part heard. Proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule (1) of Order-17 provides that when the hearing of the suit has commenced, it shall be continued from day to day. Under proviso of sub-rule (2) of Rule-1 of Order-17, the Court should have proceeded day to day but showing indulgence to the petitioner granted two adjournments before closing evidence of the petitioner plaintiff. Held, no error is committed by the Court in closing the evidence of the plaintiff.” 14. In the case of “Shiv Cotex” (supra), the Apex Court has held thus: “16. No litigant has a right to abuse the procedure provided in the CPC. Adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system. It is true that cap on adjournments to a party during the hearing of the suit provided in proviso to Order-17 Rule-1 CPC is not mandatory and in a suitable case, on justifiable cause, the court may grant more than three adjournments to a party for its evidence but ordinarily the cap provided in the proviso to Order-17 Rule-1 CPC should be maintained. When we say ‘justifiable cause’ what we mean to say is, a cause which is not only ‘sufficient cause’ as contemplated in sub-rule (1) of Rule-1 of Order-17 CPC but a cause which makes the request for adjournment by a party during the hearing of the suit beyond three adjournments unavoidable and sort of a compelling necessity like sudden illness of the litigant or the witness or the lawyer; death in the family of any one of them; natural calamity like floods, earthquake, etc. in the area where any of these persons reside; an accident involving the litigant or the witness or the lawyer on way to the court and such like cause. The list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. 17. However, the absence of the lawyer or his non-availability because of professional work in other court or elsewhere or on the ground of strike call or the change of a lawyer or the continuous illness of the lawyer (the party whom he represents must then make alternative arrangement well in advance) or similar grounds will not justify more than three adjournments to a party during the hearing of the suit. The past conduct of a party in the conduct of the proceedings is an important circumstance which the courts must keep in view whenever a request for adjournment is made. A party to the suit is not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure and pleasure and has no right to determine when the evidence would be led in by it or the matter should be heard. The parties to a suit–whether plaintiff or defendant–must cooperate with the court in ensuring the effective work on the date of hearing for which the matter has been fixed. If they don’t, they do so at their own peril.” 15. In the case of “Estralla Rubber” (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus: “The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article-227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required by them in a legal manner. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required by them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to.” 16. There can be no dispute regarding the principles laid down in the above referred judgments. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Trial Court ought to have granted adjournment and opportunity to the plaintiffs to bring the expert witness on the next date of hearing. Inconvenience caused to the defendants can be compensated by awarding costs. 17. Hence, the Petition is allowed. (a) Impugned order dated 09/10/2013 is quashed and set aside. (b) Application dated 09/10/2013 filed by the plaintiffs for adjournment is allowed. (c) Opportunity shall be given to the plaintiffs to lead further evidence, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the defendants, as condition precedent. Costs shall be deposited by the plaintiffs before the Trial court. (d) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. 18. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.