JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.:- The plaintiff-appellant had filed the instant suit seeking separate possession by way of partition of the house in dispute alleging that he was entitled to 1/5th share of the suit property. 2. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondents on the averments that Babu Ram had partitioned the property amongst his all five sons during his lifetime. 3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court on 7.1.2008:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for separate possession by way of partition by metes and bounds? OPP. 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 4. Whether plaintiff is estopped from his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD 5. Relief.” 4. Appellant was afforded repeated opportunities to lead evidence. However, he failed to adduce any evidence and his evidence was closed by order. Thereafter, the trial Court proceeded to decide the case under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC and dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 12.9.2011, observing that there was no evidence adduced on file by the plaintiff despite repeated opportunities. It was also observed that even the appellant has not stepped into the witness box in support of his case and therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against him. 5. Appeal filed on behalf of the plaintiff against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed by the lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 7.1.2013 in the following manner:- “In the ratio of the law referred above, the record shows that sufficient opportunities were granted by the learned trial court to the plaintiff/appellant to lead his evidence but he failed to lead the evidence and thereafter, the learned trial court has rightly closed the evidence of the plaintiff/appellant by order under Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned lower court is based on correct appreciation of law which do not call for any interference by this court and is upheld. The point is decided accordingly.” 6. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned lower court is based on correct appreciation of law which do not call for any interference by this court and is upheld. The point is decided accordingly.” 6. Still not satisfied, the plaintiff has filed the instant appeal submitting that following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal for consideration of this Court:- “i. Whether the Courts below erred in dismissing the case of the plaintiff under Order 17 Rule 2 CPC? ii. Whether the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are illegal, perverse and liable to be set aside?” 7. In support of his case, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that where neither the plaintiff nor his witnesses are present, the case has to be dismissed under Order 17 Rule 2 CPC and not under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC. Learned counsel relied upon judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Das and others v. Ghisia Bai 2002(3) RCR (Civil) 266 and judgment of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumari and another v. Krishan Kumar and others 2010(4) PLR 748 . 8. At this stage, it may be noticed that this Court had an occasion to deal with a similar situation, as in the instant case, in case titled as Munish Kumar v. Parveen Kumar RSA No.699 of 2013 decided on 6.5.2014 and it was observed:- “At this stage, it may further be noticed that Rules 2 and 3 of Order XVII CPC operate in different and distinct sets of circumstances. Rule 2 applies when an adjournment has been generally granted and not for any special purpose. On the other hand, Rule 3 operates where the adjournment has been given for one of the purposes mentioned in the Rule. While Rule 2 speaks of disposal of the suit in one of the specified modes, Rule 3 empowers the Court to decide the suit forthwith. The basic distinction between the two Rules, however, is that in the former, any party has failed to appear at the hearing, while in the latter the party though present has committed any one or more of the enumerated defaults. The combined effect of the explanation to Rules 2 and 3 is that a discretion has been conferred on the Court to proceed as it deems fit. The combined effect of the explanation to Rules 2 and 3 is that a discretion has been conferred on the Court to proceed as it deems fit. The power conferred on the Court is permissive and not mandatory. The explanation is in the nature of deeming provision, when under given circumstances, absentee party is deemed to be present. Moreover, in the instant case, simply because the plaintiff-appellant was not present, it could not be held that the party was not present, as admittedly learned counsel for the plaintiffappellant was present. The word ‘Party’ as used in Order XVII Rule 2 CPC will surely include ‘Counsel for the party’. In fact, the factual situation in the instant case is entirely different than the case relied upon by the appellant. In that case evidence of defendants was closed and they have moved application for leading additional evidence and defendant was not represented and a decree was passed. Applications were filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, which were allowed and in these circumstances Hon’ble the Supreme Court observed, as noticed above”. 9. In the instant case, despite repeated opportunities, the appellant has failed to lead any evidence. So much so even he himself failed to step into the witness box to support his case. Thus, a premium cannot be given to a litigant for his own fault. 10. At this stage, it may further be noticed that neither before the lower Appellate Court nor before this Court, it has been explained that the circumstances were beyond the control of the appellant and because of which, the appellant could not bring in the evidence. 11. In ‘M/s Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. and others’ 2011(3) ACJ 728 (SC), Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that after grant of three adjournments for leading evidence, when no evidence was led, further adjournment cannot be granted. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble the Apex Court further held that it is high time for courts that Courts become sensitive to delays in justice delivery system and realize that the adjournments do not dent the efficacy of judicial process and if this menace is not controlled adequately, the litigant public may lose faith in the system sooner than later. It was further held that the courts, particularly trial Courts, must ensure that on every date of hearing, effective progress takes place in the suit. It was further held that the courts, particularly trial Courts, must ensure that on every date of hearing, effective progress takes place in the suit. In the instant case, despite granting a lot of opportunities, the appellant failed to produce any witness on his behalf and in these circumstances he could not be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong raising an argument on the basis of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Das & others (supra) and judgment of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumari (supra). 12. It is a matter of record that learned counsel for the appellant was present on the date judgment and decree was passed. One fails to understand that when counsel was present, how the suit could be dismissed in default? Thus, the reliance placed by learned counsel for the appellant upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Mohan Das & others’ case (supra) and the judgment of this Court in Santosh Kumari’s case (supra) are of no help to him, as the aforesaid judgments were passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court keeping in view the facts and circumstances of those cases. 13. In view thereof, the trial Court was perfectly justified in proceeding under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC. 14. Thus, the substantial questions of law, as raised, do not arise in this appeal. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------