JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. Respondent-Applicants, by laying instant application under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC, have prayed for rehearing of Civil First Appeal No.388/2010, decided on 8th of August, 2018. The Court, after hearing arguments on appeal, reserved judgment on 1st of August, 2018 and then pronounced the same on 8th of August, 2018 by allowing the appeal. 2. Apposite facts are that appellant-non-applicant preferred an appeal against judgment & decree dated 1st of November, 2010 passed by Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Udaipur (for short, 'learned Court below'), whereby learned Court below dismissed his suit for injunction and possession of suit property. The appeal was admitted on 23rd of December, 2010. Thereafter, arguments were heard on stay petition and the same was disposed of on 10th of May, 2011 with a direction to respondent-applicants not to alienate the suit property so as to create third party right. The record of learned Court below was requisitioned and, considering status of the appellant-non-applicant as senior citizen, hearing of the appeal was expedited. On 12th of October, 2017, arguments were heard in part and the matter was posted for further hearing on 23rd of October, 2017. Later on, upon joint request of learned counsel for the parties for exploring possibility of amicable settlement in the matter, hearing of the appeal was deferred on 14th of March, 2018. 3. Once again, when the matter came up on 11th of April, 2018, none was present for the respondents and on behalf of appellant it was submitted that there is no chance of amicable settlement between the rival parties. It is in that background, Court heard arguments on behalf of the appellant. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 25th of April, 2018, matter was deferred in absence of learned counsel for the respondents. Yet again, on the next date of hearing, i.e., 9th of May, 2018, a request was made on behalf of respondent-applicants to defer the matter for exploring possibility of settlement. When the matter came up on 23rd of May, 2018, none was present for the respondents, and therefore, it was posted for 4th of July, 2018. On later other dates also, matter was deferred. Lastly, on 1st of August, 2018, when the appeal was called out for hearing, on behalf of respondent-applicants, learned counsel Mr. O.P. Mehta pleaded no instructions and for seeking adjournment submitted that arguing counsel Mr. On later other dates also, matter was deferred. Lastly, on 1st of August, 2018, when the appeal was called out for hearing, on behalf of respondent-applicants, learned counsel Mr. O.P. Mehta pleaded no instructions and for seeking adjournment submitted that arguing counsel Mr. Falgun Buch is out of country. Considering the submissions of Mr. Mehta, a detailed order was drawn by the Court that umpteen opportunities are given to the learned counsel for the respondents but the matter is not argued. The Court further recorded that hearing is concluded and judgment is reserved. The complete text of order dated 1st of August, 2018, reads as under: 4. Xxx xxx xxx. "In the present appeal on 19.10.2016, on one appeared on behalf of the respondent and this Court granted last opportunity to the respondent and it was further directed that if no one will appear on behalf of the respondent, then arguments of only appearing party will be heard and on the next date again no one appeared for the respondent. On 01.12.2016 again no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent. On 12.10.2017 after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the matter was kept part heard. Later again on 23.10.2017, 06.11.2017 and 09.11.2017, counsel for the parties sought adjournment. On 14.03.2018 learned counsel for the parties submitted that there is a chance of amicable settlement between the parties, therefore, some time may be granted. But no such settlement took place between the parties. On 11.04.2018 again none remained present for the respondent and learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no chance for amicable settlement between the parties. Then again 25.04.2018, 09.05.2018 adjournment was sought by respondent and again on 23.05.2018 none remained present for the respondent. On 04.07.2018 and 11.07.2018 again the matter was adjourned. On 25.07.2018 the matter was adjourned on behalf of the respondent and the matter was ordered to be listed on 01.08.2018. Today again learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent pleads no instructions and further submits that the arguing counsel Mr. Falgun Buch is out of country. Sufficient time opportunity has been given to respondent for their arguments. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Judgment reserved." 5. Thereafter, the judgment was pronounced on 8th of August, 2018 whereby appeal was allowed and suit filed by the appellant was decreed in toto. 6. Falgun Buch is out of country. Sufficient time opportunity has been given to respondent for their arguments. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Judgment reserved." 5. Thereafter, the judgment was pronounced on 8th of August, 2018 whereby appeal was allowed and suit filed by the appellant was decreed in toto. 6. In the application, it is, inter-alia, pleaded by respondent-applicants that non-appearance of their counsel on the appointed date was due to sufficient reasons, and therefore, appeal is required to be reheard by invoking Order 41 Rule 21 CPC. It is also averred in the application that on many occasions appeal was deferred on requests being made either by appellant himself in person or his counsel. Respondent-applicants also pleaded in the application that in the interest of justice atleast one opportunity be afforded to the learned counsel for the respondent-applicants to argue the matter and therefore it would be just and appropriate to recall judgment dated 8th of August, 2018. 7. The application is contested by the appellant by submitting reply. A preliminary objection is also incorporated in the reply. It is further averred in the preliminary objection that the counsel espousing cause of respondent-applicants in the instant application is representing them since 3rd of October, 2018 and on number of occasions he remained present with another counsel Mr. O.P. Mehta. It is also submitted in the return that Mr. O.P. Mehta is not a designated Senior Counsel, therefore, it was not necessary for him to seek assistance of Mr. Falgun Buch to argue the appeal even in his absence. A specific plea was raised that in a part heard matter when counsel has chosen not to appear, and therefore, the Court, after noticing conduct of the respondent-applicants, heard arguments and reserved the judgment to be pronounced later on, then the same cannot be recalled by invoking Order 41 Rule 21 CPC. 8. Mr. Falgun Buch, learned counsel for the respondent-applicants, has vehemently argued that in the interest of justice appeal warrants rehearing by recalling judgment dated 8th of August, 2018. During arguments, Mr. Buch has canvassed all the grounds incorporated in the application with full vehemence. In support of his arguments, Mr. Buch has placed reliance on following judgments: (1) G.P. Srivastava Vs. R.K. Raizada, (2000) AIR SC 1221) (2) Parimal Vs. Veena, (2011) AIR SC 1150 (3) Lad Devi and Others Vs. During arguments, Mr. Buch has canvassed all the grounds incorporated in the application with full vehemence. In support of his arguments, Mr. Buch has placed reliance on following judgments: (1) G.P. Srivastava Vs. R.K. Raizada, (2000) AIR SC 1221) (2) Parimal Vs. Veena, (2011) AIR SC 1150 (3) Lad Devi and Others Vs. Vaneeta Jain and Others, (2007) AIR SC 1889 (4) The Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and Others Vs. Raghu Raj, (2009) AIR SC 514 (5) Savithri Amma Seethama Vs. Aratha Karthy and Others, (1983) AIR SC 318 (6) Tahil Ram Issardas Sadarangani and Others Vs. Ramchand Issardas Sadarangani and Others, (1993) AIR SC 1182 (7) Malkiat Singh and Others Vs. Joginder Singh and Others, (1998) AIR SC 258 (8) Hari Shanker Vs. Gobind Parshad Jagdish Parshad and Others, (2002) 2 AWC 1048 SC] (9) Rafiq and Others Vs. Munshilal and Others, (1981) AIR SC 1400 (10) Udaipur Zila Sahakari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd. Vs. M/s Agro Sales & Services, (2013) 1 WLN(Raj) 408] (11) Narayan Lal Bagra & Another Vs. Hanuman Sharma and Others, 2007 52 CivCC (Raj.)] (12) State Bank of India Vs. Chandra Govindji, (2000) 8 SCC 532 (13) Smt. Baya and Others. Vs. State of Raj. & Another (Civil Second Appeal No. 154/2010) (14) Chandra Stores, Ajmer Vs. Cloth Merchants Association, Ajmer, (1964) AIR Raj. 197 9. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. S.P. Sharma and Mr. Narendra Thanvi have argued that respondent-applicants adopted dilatory tactics and sought adjournment on one pretext or other in a part heard matter. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-non-applicant that the grounds set out in the application are not satisfying the requirements of Order 41 Rule 21 CPC inasmuch as no sufficient cause is forthcoming for recalling the judgment. It is also submitted by learned counsel that notices of the appeal were properly served on the respondent-applicants inasmuch as they were represented by the counsel during pendency of the appeal and furthermore there is nothing on record to show that respondents were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the appeal was called on for hearing. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials available on record. Order 41 Rule 21 CPC envisages provision for rehearing of an appeal, which is heard ex-parte and judgment is pronounced therein. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials available on record. Order 41 Rule 21 CPC envisages provision for rehearing of an appeal, which is heard ex-parte and judgment is pronounced therein. The Legislature, in its wisdom, has provided twin conditions for invoking Rule 21 of Order 41 CPC, which are; notice was not duly served on the respondent, or that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the appeal was called on for hearing. 11. Undeniably, the first contingency is not available in the present matter as respondent-applicants were represented by their counsel through out the proceedings. Now, the other condition that they were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the appeal was called on for hearing, suffice it to observe that at the threshold Court heard arguments on 12th of October, 2017 in presence of counsel for the respondent-applicants and marked the appeal "Part heard". The fact that arguments of the appellant are concluded, is also borne out from ordersheet dated 11th of April, 2018, when the counsel for the respondent-applicants was not present. While drawing order dated 1st of August, 2018, quoted supra, the Court has taken note of various adjournments sought by the learned counsel for the respondent-applicants. The Court also observed that sufficient opportunity has already been given to respondents for their arguments. 12. It is also noteworthy that initially Mr. Falgun Buch was the counsel for the respondent-applicants and later on Mr. O.P. Mehta also appeared on behalf of the respondents. On many occasions, both the counsels were present during hearing. In totality, this Court is of the view that in a part heard matter it is discretion of the Court to defer the matter and adjournment cannot be claimed as of right by a party to the litigation. The ordersheet of 1st of August, 2018 speak volumes about the fact that Mr. O.P. Mehta was present on behalf of respondent-applicants though he pleaded no instructions. True it is that on that day Mr. Mehta has urged that Mr. Falgun Buch is out of country but in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case and the sequence of events noticed hereinabove, it is rather difficult to comprehend that Mr. Falgun Buch was the arguing counsel. 13. Assuming it that Mr. True it is that on that day Mr. Mehta has urged that Mr. Falgun Buch is out of country but in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case and the sequence of events noticed hereinabove, it is rather difficult to comprehend that Mr. Falgun Buch was the arguing counsel. 13. Assuming it that Mr. Buch was out of country on 1st of August, 2018 but then he ought to have made arrangements looking to the urgency in the matter and taking note of the fact that it was a part heard matter. Therefore, in totality, I am afraid, it is not a case wherein respondent-applicants can canvass a sufficient cause, which prevented them or their counsel to appear before the Court when the appeal was called for hearing. The judgments on which the learned counsel for the respondent- applicants has placed reliance, in my opinion, are clearly distinguishable in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as conduct of the respondent-applicants. It is really a cause of grave and serious concern that the Court while considering status of the appellant as senior citizen has expedited hearing in the appeal and at the stage when appeal was part herd, counsel for respondent-applicants did not appear on number of occasions and finally one of the counsels pleaded no instructions on the pretext that arguing counsel is out of country. 14. This sort of plea/submission at the behest of respondents cannot be countenanced in an appeal which is partly heard by the Court. A purely strategic move of a party to the litigation for deferring/prolonging a part-heard appeal by no stretch of imagination be construed as sufficient cause which prevented it from appearing when the appeal was called on for hearing within the four corners of Rule 21 of Order 41 of CPC so as to rehear the appeal. 15. Moreover, adjournment cannot be claimed as a matter of right by a litigant under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC as right of adjournment is the discretion of the Court. This Court, in Laxman Das vs. Deoji Mal and Others, (2003) AIR Raj. 74, while examining Order 17 Rule 1 CPC, observed that adjournment without compelling circumstances are not justified. Relying on some of the judgments of Supreme Court, the Court held: "There is another aspect of the matter. This Court, in Laxman Das vs. Deoji Mal and Others, (2003) AIR Raj. 74, while examining Order 17 Rule 1 CPC, observed that adjournment without compelling circumstances are not justified. Relying on some of the judgments of Supreme Court, the Court held: "There is another aspect of the matter. From the order sheets of the case, it appears that petitioner-defendant had been trying to cause delay in an unjustified manner and in such an eventuality, there is no obligation on the part of the Court below to adjourn the case. Adjournment without compelling circumstance cannot be justified as it causes great injustice and hardship to the other party. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had always emphasised in early disposal of the matter and deprecated the practice of delay in the trial. The adjournment cannot be given merely by asking, rather when the witnesses are in the Court, they must be examined except for specific reasons which must be recorded by the Court. Inconvenience of an Advocate cannot be a ground for adjournment. Seeking several adjournments at long intervals does not serve the purpose, rather causes the prejudice to the Court and the opposite party. (Vide Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, (2001) AIR SC 1158; and State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh, (2001) AIR SC 1403). In Re Sanjiv Dutta, (1995) 3 SCC 619 : (1995 AIR SCW 2203), the Hon'ble Apex Court, observed as under:- "Some members of profession have been adopting perceptively casual approach to the practice of the profession as is evident from their absence when the matters are called out, the filing of incomplete and inaccurate pleadings many times even illegible and without personal check and verification, the non-payment of Court fees and process fees, the failure of removing office objections, the failure to take steps to serve the parties et al. They do not realise the seriousness of these acts and omissions. They do not only amount to the contempt of the Court but do positive disservice to the litigants and create embarrassing situation in the Court leading to avoidable unpleasantness and delay in the disposal of the matter.......If the profession is to survive, a judicial system has to be vitalized. No service will be too small in making a system efficient, effective and credible. No service will be too small in making a system efficient, effective and credible. The casualness and indifference with which some members practice the profession are certainly not calculated to achieve that purpose or to enhance the prestige either of the profession or of the institution they are serving. If the people lose confidence in the profession on account of the deviant ways of some of its members, it is not only the profession which will suffer but also the administration of the justice as a whole. The present trend unless checked is likely to lead to a stage when the system will be found wrecked from within before it is wrecked from out-side. It is for the members of the profession to introspect and take the corrective steps in time and also spare the Court the unpleasant duty." 16. Similarly, in N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shivde, (2001) AIR SC 2028, the Hon'ble Apex Court, observed as under (Para 20):- "If the advocate has no unavoidable inconvenience, it is his duty to make other arrangements for examining the witnesses who are present in the Court. Seeking adjournments for postponing the examination of witnesses who are present in the Court even without making other arrangements for examining such witnesses is a dereliction of an advocate's duty to the Court as they would cause much harassment and hardship to the witnesses. Such dereliction if repeated would amount to misconduct of the advocate concerned. Legal profession must be purified from such abuses of the Court procedures. Tactics of filibuster, if adopted by an advocate, is also a professional misconduct." 17. Therefore, viewed from any angle, I find no reason to recall judgment dated 8th of August, 2018 and consequently, application under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC is hereby rejected.