JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, A.C.J —Impugned order dated 10.11.2016, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) , Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in an application filed by the Decree Holder for adjournment, which is self speaking and reflective of the state of affairs, in which the petitioner herein has been conducting himself before the trial Court, is reproduced as under: "Today, case is listed for AWS on self responsibility being final opportunity subject to cost. No Aws produced. At this stage, an application for adjournment has been filed by the vice counsel for the applicant/DH. This order shall dispose of said application. It is averred that the applicant is plaintiff in the above mentioned suit and is patient of high blood pressure for the last three years and is under treatment at I.G.M.C. Shimla and due to this reason he is unable to appear personally before this Court. It is further submitted that the applicant himself a witness in the present case and today is last opportunity to produce his witnesses but despite bonafied (sic: bonafide) reason he is not in a position to attend the Court or produce his witnesses. It is further submitted that for the above stated reason the adjournment may kindly be granted in the interest of justice. The opposite counsel objected to the said application for adjournment. Heard. Record perused. It is evident that more than sufficient opportunities for Aws have been granted for applicant/DH and today is the sixth opportunity but despite that only one affidavit of Ramesh Chand has been filed and the said witness has also not produced for crossexamination. It is also pertinent to mention here that on the previous date of hearing the counsel was directed that no further opportunity will be granted for Aws in case of failure. No medical has been appended along with present application. Moreover the same also not accompanied with an affidavit. For the above stated reasons the present application is hereby dismissed. It be tagged with the main case file. Therefore, there seems no reason to this Court to further grant any opportunity to the applicant/DH for Aws and the same is closed by the order of the Court. List the case of Rws on 16.1.2017." 2. For the above stated reasons the present application is hereby dismissed. It be tagged with the main case file. Therefore, there seems no reason to this Court to further grant any opportunity to the applicant/DH for Aws and the same is closed by the order of the Court. List the case of Rws on 16.1.2017." 2. Finding not to be in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel, expressing genuine inability of the Decree Holder in leading evidence, establishing disobedience, if any, of the decree by the Judgment Debtor, the Court below dismissed the application. 3. Decree Holder filed an application, alleging disobedience of the decree in question. Such application, apparently, was never pursued diligently. More than six opportunities were afforded to lead evidence, establishing disobedience of the decree, yet none was produced. Indulgently, the Court below granted opportunity to produce evidence on the basis of selfresponsibility and on a date so fixed for such purpose, the Decree Holder, filed an application, contents whereof are reproduced, in toto, as under: "Application for granting adjournment in the above titled case, due to illness of plaintiff. Respectfully Sheweth, 1. That the above titled civil suit is pending before this Ld. Court and fixed for today for P.Ws/cross examination. 2. That the applicant s plaintiff in the above titled civil suit and is patient of high blood pressure from last three years and the applicant is under treatment in I.G.M.C. Shimla due to this reason he is unable to appear before this Hon''ble court personally on today. The applicant is himself as a witness in the above titled case. Today, last opportunity has given to produce witness to applicant/plaintiff but due to above bonafide reason he is not in a position to attend the court and produce his witnesses, hence this application. It is, therefore, prayed that keeping in view the facts and submissions made above the adjournment may kindly be granted to produce witness may kindly also be granted to applicant/plaintiff in the interest of justice and fair play." 4. The explanation, seeking adjournment, is as vague as it can be. Medical record also does not establish the condition of the Decree Holder to be such so as to make him unable to appear in the Court. 5. Hence, the impugned order cannot be said to be unreasonable, illegal or perverse, warranting interference by this Court. 6. The explanation, seeking adjournment, is as vague as it can be. Medical record also does not establish the condition of the Decree Holder to be such so as to make him unable to appear in the Court. 5. Hence, the impugned order cannot be said to be unreasonable, illegal or perverse, warranting interference by this Court. 6. For all the aforesaid reasons, present petition, devoid of merit, is dismissed. 7. Any observation made hereinabove shall have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the main case. Parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the Court below on 24.4.2018. Petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s) , if any.