JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Admit. Mr. R.L. Khapre, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent/Caveator. 3. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Order dt.7.3.2015 delivered by 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Akola in Special Civil Suit No.97 of 2008. The suit was instituted on 19.8.2008 for damages on the ground that the plaintiff – a Private Limited Company, through its Constituted Attorney, filed a suit for damages on the ground that the defendant/Company, who is in the business of sale of seeds, represented to the plaintiff to sell 4500 quintals of raw JS335 Soyabean seeds. The plaintiff had paid sum of Rs.54,00,000/by various cheques, six in number during the period between 24.11.2007 to 28.11.2007. It is alleged that the defendant failed to comply with the terms of stocking agreement and total supply of goods to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had, therefore, claimed refund of entire amount paid together with interest/damages for nonsupply of goods worth Rs.40,43,914/. Written statement was filed by the defendant in the suit denying the agreement dt.4.8.2007 and stocking agreement dt.27.11.2007. Thus, the defendant had denied liability to pay the amount sought to be recovered from it. Thus, breach of agreement was alleged and the defendant had denied breach thereof. The learned trial Judge by the impugned Judgment and Order dt.7.3.2015 had decreed the suit. 4. On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that sufficient opportunity to lead evidence was not granted to it. My attention has been invited to ordersheet and various adjournments, majority of which were also sought by or on behalf of the plaintiff in order to submit that the learned trial Judge did not grant an opportunity to the defendant to lead evidence of its witness or witnesses so as to resist the suit for recovery of money. It is submitted that, considering the number of adjournments granted to the plaintiff, the defendant could have been granted adjournment even subject to imposition of reasonable costs to allow defendant to lead and complete evidence in the trial in the larger interest of justice. Learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that, in the trial Court, the plaintiff had repeatedly sought adjournment and they were granted. The plaintiff had closed evidence on 26.9.2014 after issues were framed in the suit on 2.9.2010. Learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that, in the trial Court, the plaintiff had repeatedly sought adjournment and they were granted. The plaintiff had closed evidence on 26.9.2014 after issues were framed in the suit on 2.9.2010. On 8.11.2014, Presiding Officer of the Court was on leave when the matter was fixed for defendant's evidence. On the adjourned date i.e. 5.12.2014, the defendant had moved an application for adjournment and it was allowed. Again, on 3.1.2015, the Presiding Officer of the trial Court was on leave. On the adjourned date i.e. on 17.1.2015, the defendant was constrained to move the application for adjournment which was rejected and strangely costs of Rs.500/were also imposed to be deposited with Legal Aid Services Authority. In respect of refusal of adjournment on 17.1.2015, it is the grievance on behalf of the appellant that the learned trial Judge was moved with an application on behalf of the defendant stating therein that the defendant wants to adduce necessary evidence; however, some important documents could not be obtained and hence, it was impossible to lead evidence. Therefore, adjournment was sought. But the application was objected on behalf of the plaintiff. 5. Learned trial Judge considered the objection raised by the plaintiff and imposed costs upon the defendant in the sum of Rs.500/payable to the Legal Services Authority; but quite strangely refused to allow the application to lead evidence on behalf of the defendant and instead simply adjourned the case for final argument. Again, on 2.2.2015, the defendant had to request for adjournment on the ground that important documents are to be traced and produced. However, the learned trial Judge appears to have granted short adjournment as a last chance by order below Exh.134, dt.2.2.2015. My attention is invited to praecipe dt.26.9.2014 produced on behalf of the plaintiff in the trial Court whereby the plaintiff declared that the plaintiff do not want to examine any further witness in oral evidence in support of claim of the plaintiff. This praecipe bears following endorsement. O ____________________ Filed. 2nd Jt. C.J.S.D. Dt.26.9.2014 However, it was not signed by the Presiding Officer of the Court until certified copy thereof was sought on behalf of the plaintiff intending to challenge the impugned Judgment and Order. The learned Counsel Mr.M.D.Sarda applied for certified copy in the trial Court. This praecipe bears following endorsement. O ____________________ Filed. 2nd Jt. C.J.S.D. Dt.26.9.2014 However, it was not signed by the Presiding Officer of the Court until certified copy thereof was sought on behalf of the plaintiff intending to challenge the impugned Judgment and Order. The learned Counsel Mr.M.D.Sarda applied for certified copy in the trial Court. Learned Presiding Officer found that pursis was not signed by the then Presiding Officer on 26.9.2014 on the ground that the regular Presiding Officer is on leave. After hearing Mr.M.D.Sarda, learned Counsel, the pursis was signed on 1.4.2015. At the time when the learned Presiding Officer in the Court of 2nd C.J.S.D., Akola became functus officio, the impugned Judgment and Order was already delivered on 7.3.2015. This prima facie appears to be a material irregularity which cannot be explained on the ground that the learned Counsel representing the defendant applied for certified copy of pursis which was not signed. Therefore, it was signed subsequent to the delivery of impugned Judgment and Order on 1.4.2015. It is deprecable that Presiding Officer of the Court shall create or amend/alter any trial Court record after disposal of the trial. The successor Judge must not alter or create the record of the trial Court when he becomes functus officio after decision in the trial. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant brought to my notice various adjournments sought for during the progress of the suit and the fact that though application for adjournment to lead evidence was rejected, curiously costs were imposed in the sum of Rs.500/while the learned Presiding Officer by order dt.17.1.2015 adjourned the case for final arguments notwithstanding the fact that costs was imposed for to be deposited with the Legal Services Authority. This was unjust. My attention is invited to the ruling in the case of State Bank of India .vs. Chandra Govindji (KM.), (2000) 8 SCC 532 ). The Hon'ble Supreme Court, considering Order XVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and proviso thereto in respect of adjournments, held that, 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court, considering Order XVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and proviso thereto in respect of adjournments, held that, 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. Earlier adjournments, 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. (In para 7 thereof, the above observations have been made). The Apex Court in that case was pleased to set aside the orders passed by the Rent Controller confirmed by the learned District Judge and the High Court and remitted the matter to the Rent Controller for fresh consideration from the stage when the matter was set down on 24.11.1992. 7. My attention is also invited to the Judgment by this Court in the case of Anandrao @ Amrut Krushnarao Tirmanwar and Ors. vs. Prashant Madhukar Patil and Ors. reported in 2015(1) Bom.C.R. 702, wherein this Court has considered the legal position in respect of adjournments in para 11 thus : “11. To my mind, therefore, considering the rulings cited (supra) there is no doubt that repeated adjournments are deprecable particularly when there is no just and sufficient cause for seeking adjournments by either of the parties to the suit. The adjournments are bound to be discouraged at least by imposing the costs sufficient enough to compensate the other party who sacrifices its time and money to engage Counsel for to proceed with the trial while it is the duty of the trial Court to ensure the progress in the suit and expeditious trial so that the suit can be disposed of as early as possible. At the same time, one cannot forget in the larger interest of justice so that if any application for adjournment is rejected, the effect of such refusal or rejection can also be borne in mind while granting or refusing the permission to crossexamine the witness already examined; subject to reasonable costs. At the same time, one cannot forget in the larger interest of justice so that if any application for adjournment is rejected, the effect of such refusal or rejection can also be borne in mind while granting or refusing the permission to crossexamine the witness already examined; subject to reasonable costs. The trial Court can ensure that other side to the suit trial is reasonably compensated while defaulting party is made to pay sufficient and reasonable costs for indulging in adjournment, before drastic action of closure of the evidence. ” In that case, the parties were directed to cooperate with the learned trial Judge for early disposal of the suit and the order impugned was set aside subject to costs in the sum of Rs.5,000/payable to the plaintiff. 8. Thus, to my mind, for the delay that has occurred and the inconvenience suffered by other party, reasonable costs may be imposed so as to ensure that the suit is decided on merits according to law in the larger interest of justice. Although repeated adjournments are deprecable, reasonable costs may be imposed and increased for each repeated adjournment, if any, sought by the other side. This is to ensure that the proceeding is heard and disposed of on merits of evidence led according to law. Procedure is handmaid of justice and not master of it. 9. Reference is also made to the ruling in the case of Food World Super Markets Limited and another .vs. H. Sujan Singh and Others reported in 2009 (14) SCC 359 . In that case, the defendant's right to crossexamine the plaintiff was foreclosed which, in the opinion of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, resulted in grave prejudice to the rights of defence of the defendant. In the result, the impugned order therein was set aside and the trial Court was directed to permit the defendants to crossexamine the plaintiff's witness. By recalling that witness, expeditious hearing was directed in that case. 10. In the result, the impugned order therein was set aside and the trial Court was directed to permit the defendants to crossexamine the plaintiff's witness. By recalling that witness, expeditious hearing was directed in that case. 10. As against the rulings above cited, the learned Counsel Mr.Khapre made a reference to the ruling in the case of Madanlal vs. Shamlal reported in AIR 2002 SC 100 to submit that, in a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell, the defendant had sought to produce certified copy of order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, registered sale deed and electricity bills but the documents were not produced at the relevant time before settlement of the issues. It was held that, under Order XIII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the cause shown by the defendant that documents were given to one Law Graduate for producing it before the Court but he lost them, was not held as a good cause. Therefore, the defendant's application to produce documents was rejected and the revision was not held as material irregularity. It appears that, in that case, the defendant had sought to plead unavailability of documentary evidence on the ground that one Palaram – a Law Graduate was given the documents and he lost them, under Order XIII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure that plea was not considered the good cause. Thus, the Apex Court explained that the words “material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction” do not cover either errors of facts or law. 11. To my mind, each rulings cited at the bar are required to be considered as to whether it is attracted in the facts and circumstances revealed in the present case. In the present case, the dispute is between two registered Companies. The plaintiff sought to recover damages on account of alleged breach of agreement. The plaintiff was allowed to lead evidence and his side was closed after availing of repeated adjournments. The defendant obtained adjournments on the ground that certain documents were to be traced and produced in support of the defence. The plaintiff sought to recover damages on account of alleged breach of agreement. The plaintiff was allowed to lead evidence and his side was closed after availing of repeated adjournments. The defendant obtained adjournments on the ground that certain documents were to be traced and produced in support of the defence. In such a case, the learned trial Judge, after granting opportunity to produce documents to the defendant, could have insisted upon witness, if any, on behalf of the defendant to enter in the witness box, but instead the learned trial Judge fixed the case for final argument despite the fact that costs in the sum of Rs.500/was imposed payable to the Legal Services Authority. The defendant could have been ordered to produce witness, if any, to lead defence evidence subject to increasing cost per adjournment sought. When, according to the defendant, documentary evidence was not available, oral evidence could have been called upon, if any. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, in my opinion, the learned trial Judge erred in not giving full opportunity to the defendant Company to lead its evidence. It was necessary in the larger interest of justice to call upon the defendant to lead evidence, if any, to meet the case of the plaintiff after the plaintiff had closed evidence. Therefore, the impugned Judgment and Order is unjust, not sustainable in law and hence, the same is set aside. 12. However, considering the number of adjournments sought in the trial Court on behalf of the defendants, I impose costs in the sum of Rs.10,000/upon the defendant as a condition precedent to lead evidence in the trial Court. The costs shall be payable to the respondent/original plaintiff herein. 13. The parties are directed to approach the trial Court on 24.8.2015. The learned trial Judge to allow the defendant to lead evidence subject to payment of costs as mentioned above. Parties shall cooperate with the trial Court for early disposal of the suit on merits according to law. The learned trial Judge to hear the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of this order. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of.