ORDER : 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 17.12.2016, passed in Civil Suit No. 76/2013 (21/2010) (27/2010) titled as ‘Vijay Bharti & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.’, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dated 29.09.2016 and for providing opportunity to the petitioner for adducing evidence was dismissed, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 2. The plaintiffs-petitioners had filed a suit in a representative capacity for removal of encroachment from the public Chowk and Gali. The defendant-respondent number 3 and 4 filed separate reply and on the basis of pleadings, 7 issues were framed by the Trial Court on 25.10.2010. The defendant-respondent number 3 and 4 moved an application under Order 8 Rule 1(4) of CPC, which was allowed vide order dated 11.09.2015 and the matter was fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to bonafide reasons, such as ailments/health issues of petitioner no.4 and urgent work of the counsel, the evidence could not be submitted in time. However, without following principles of natural justice and without considering the genuine difficulty of the petitioners, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order dated 29.09.2016 and closed the evidence of the petitioners. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court had rejected the application of the petitioners for recalling the impugned order dated 29.09.2016 in a mechanical manner and closed the evidence of the petitioner without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioners. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Trial Court has passed a well-reasoned speaking order. The evidence in the trail begun in the year 2011 and between the period of 16.11.2010 to 29.09.2016, about 46 dates were sought for various reasons which unnecessarily delayed the trial. Out of these 46 dates, the petitioners were solely responsible for 19 adjournments. The learned Trial Court had granted ample opportunity to the petitioners, but because of the callous and lacklustre attitude of the petitioners, the learned Trial Court had no option but to close the evidence of the petitioners. Out of these 46 dates, the petitioners were solely responsible for 19 adjournments. The learned Trial Court had granted ample opportunity to the petitioners, but because of the callous and lacklustre attitude of the petitioners, the learned Trial Court had no option but to close the evidence of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents have placed strong reliance on judgments of Apex Court in the cases of Shiv Cotex vs. Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. and Ors.: (2011) 9 SCC 678 , Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. Gopal and Ors.: (2021) 9 SCR 35 and judgments of this Court in the cases of Sheo Karan and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.: AIR 1979 Raj 58 , Meeta Agarwal vs. Hathroigari Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti and Ors. (S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1566/2021, decided on 04.01.2022), Gajanand and Ors. vs. Additional Civil Judge and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2939/2012 and S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No 2432/2012, decided on: 14.03.2012), Jubeda vs. Chand Khan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ No. 11294/2015, decided on: 15.12.2016), and Nandlal vs. Abdul Hamid and Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 811 of 2014, decided on: 23.01.2015). 5. Heard the rival submissions, scanned the record and considered the judgments cited at Bar. 6. It is trite law that there is limited scope of interference with a speaking order while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. It is well settled principle of law that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. It is equally well settled that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India extends to keeping the subordinate courts/tribunals within the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey the law. It has been held that though the powers under Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Apex Court judgment of Mohd. Inam vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal & Ors.: (2020) 7 SCC 327 . In the supervisory jurisdiction, the Court has to analyse whether there is some palpable/manifest error or some mistake apparent on record. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Apex Court judgment of Mohd. Inam vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal & Ors.: (2020) 7 SCC 327 . In the supervisory jurisdiction, the Court has to analyse whether there is some palpable/manifest error or some mistake apparent on record. However, it has to be presumed that order passed by court or authorities below is justified, once it is passed after consideration of the facts and material on record. 7. In the supervisory jurisdiction, the Court has to analyse whether there is some palpable/manifest error or some mistake apparent on record. However, it has to be presumed that order passed by court or authorities below is justified, once it is passed after consideration of the facts and material on record. 7. The order dated 29.09.2016 is reproduced as under: ^^oknh la[;k 4 iq:"kksre Lo;a mifLFkrA oknh us Lo;a ds vf/koDrk dh vksj ls czhQ gksYMj Jh fd'kksj dqekj dk czhQ o izkFkZuk i= ckcr vf/koDrk dks vpkud dk;Z gksus ls vuqifLFkr gksus ds dkj.k U;k;fgr esa volj nsus is'k fd;k o mDRkoknh us Lo;a dk 'kiFk i= is'k fd;kA izfroknh odhy izfroknh la0 3] 4 Jh fnyhi flag dks fnykbZ xbZA 'ks"k izfroknhx.k ds vf/koDrk mifLFkrA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA izdj.k o"kZ 2010 dk gSA ftlds fnukad 25-10-2010 dks fook/kd fojfpr fd;s x;sA lk{; oknh gsrw volj ysus ds ckn fnukad 18-01-2011 dk oknh lk{; gsrw iq:"kksre VhcMk] jfo'kadj VhcMk] vrgj bdcky ds 'kiFk i= is'k fd;s o i=koyh okLrs ftjg esa yafcr jghA oknh@izfroknh dh vksj ls fofo/k izkFkZuk i= Hkh izLrq fd;s x;sA ftudk fuLrkj.k gqvk lk{; gsrw oknh dh vksj ls vusd volj ds fy;s x;sA fnukad 27-2-2016 dks oknh iq:"kksre mifLFkr Fkk ftlds c;ku oknh ds vf/koDrk us vkbZUnk djokuk pkgkA blh izdkj fnukad 06-04-2016 dks Hkh mDr xokg iq:"kksre mifLFkr jgkA ftlds c;ku odhy oknh us vkbZUnk djokuk pkgkA fnukad 19-07-2016 dks mDr iq:"kksre yky us oknh lk{; gsrw nj0 'kiFk i= is'k dj volj pkgk tks vkbZUnk oknh dh lk{; can djus dh fgnk;r ds lkFk fn;k x;kA fnukad 24-08-2016 dks mDr xokg iqu% mifLFkr vk;k ftlus LokLF; [kjkc gksus ds dkj.k crkrs gq, lkFk gsrw volj pkgkA tks U;k;fgr 100@& gtsZ ij bl fgnk;r ds lkFk fn;k x;k fd vkbZUnk oknh lk{; uk gksus ij lk{; oknh Lor% laca/kh tk;sxhA vkt mDr xokg mifLFkr gS ftldh vksj ls vf/koDrk ds ch@,p Hkh mifLFkr gSA xokg ls izfrijh{kk djus okys vf/koDrk Hkh mifLFkr gSA vr% lk{; gsrw volj fn;s tkus dk dksbZ dkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k ugha gSA lkFk gh izdj.k 5 o"kZ ls iqjkuk gS ftuesa vdkj.k LFkxu ugha fn;s tkus ckcr ek0 jkt0 mPp U;k;ky; ds funsZ'k gS oknh dks lk{; izLrqr djus gsrw o"kksZa rd izfrfuf/k ckn esa Hkh vusd volj fn;s tk pqds gSA vr% vksj volj fn;k tkuk o blds fy;s crk;k x;k vk/kkj U;k;ksfpr izfrr ugha gksrk gSA vr% izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ik;s tkus ls vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA lquk;k x;kA oknh i{k dh lk{; dk volj lekIRk fd;k tkrk gSA bl ij vf/koDrkx.k izfroknhx.k us Hkh oknh lk{; lekIRk gksus ds dksbZ lk{; is'k ugha djuk pkgkA vr% izfrfuoknh lk{; lekIRk dh tkrh gSA i=koyh okLrs cgl vafre fnukad 03-10-2016 dks is'k gksA^^ 8. In the instant matter, the civil suit was filed in the year 2010. Evidence started on 16.11.2010 and till 29.09.2016, the closure date of evidence, approximately 46 dates were given out of which 19 dates were on account of petitioners’ evidence. The order reflects that various adjournments were allowed to the petitioners, sometimes even on cost. The petitioners were also warned about the consequence and in the interest of justice, last opportunity was granted by the Court below. However, with complete disregard to orders of the Court, the petitioners continued with the same practice, necessitating the passing of the impugned orders. It has time and again been held that if unnecessary adjournments are taken, that too for more than 3-4 occasions, closure of evidence in justified. In this regard, the judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondents are worth consideration. 9. In the case of Ishwarlal Mali Rathod (supra), the Apex Court observed as under: “5.5. Today the judiciary and the justice delivery system is facing acute problem of delay which ultimately affects the right of the litigant to access to justice and the speedy trial. Arrears are mounting because of such delay and dilatory tactics and asking repeated adjournments by the advocates and mechanically and in routine manner granted by the courts. It cannot be disputed that due to delay in access to justice and not getting the timely justice it may shaken the trust and confidence of the litigants in the justice delivery system. Many a times, the task of adjournments is used to kill Justice. Repeated adjournments break the back of the litigants. The courts are enjoying upon to perform their duties with the object of strengthening the confidence of common man in the institution entrusted with the administration of the justice. Any effort which weakens the system and shake the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation has to be discouraged. Therefore the courts shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. The courts have to be diligence and take timely action in order to usher in efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in Rule of law. Therefore the courts shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. The courts have to be diligence and take timely action in order to usher in efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in Rule of law. We are also aware that whenever the trial courts refused to grant unnecessary adjournments many a times they are Accused of being strict and they may face displeasure of the Bar. However, the judicial officers shall not worry about that if his conscience is clear and the judicial officer has to bear in mind his duties to the litigants who are before the courts and who have come for justice and for whom Courts are meant and all efforts shall be made by the courts to provide timely justice to the litigants. Take an example of the present case. Suit was for eviction. Many a times the suits are filed for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirements of the landlord. If Plaintiff who seeks eviction decree on the ground of personal bonafide requirement is not getting the timely justice and he ultimately gets the decree after 10 to 15 years, at times cause for getting the eviction decree on the ground of personal bonafide requirement may be defeated. The resultant effect would be that such a litigant would lose confidence in the justice delivery system and instead of filing civil suit and following the law he may adopt the other mode which has no backing of law and ultimately it affects the Rule of law. Therefore, the court shall be very slow in granting adjournments and as observed hereinabove they shall not grant repeated adjournments in routine manner. Time has now come to change the work culture and get out of the adjournment culture so that confidence and trust put by the litigants in the Justice delivery system is not shaken and Rule of Law is maintained. 5.6. Time has now come to change the work culture and get out of the adjournment culture so that confidence and trust put by the litigants in the Justice delivery system is not shaken and Rule of Law is maintained. 5.6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and considering the fact that in the present case ten times adjournments were given between 2015 to 2019 and twice the orders were passed granting time for cross examination as a last chance and that too at one point of time even a cost was also imposed and even thereafter also when lastly the High Court passed an order with extending the time it was specifically mentioned that no further time shall be extended and/or granted still the Petitioner-Defendant never availed of the liberty and the grace shown. In fact it can be said that the Petitioner-Defendant misused the liberty and the grace shown by the court.” In the case of Shiv Cortex (supra), the Apex Court observed as under: “14. ... Is the court obliged to give adjournment after adjournment merely because the stakes are high in the dispute? Should the court be a silent spectator and leave control of the case to a party to the case who has decided not to take the case forward? 15. It is sad, but true, that the litigants seek--and the courts grant--adjournments at the drop of the hat. In the cases where the Judges are little proactive and refuse to accede to the requests of unnecessary adjournments, the litigants deploy all sorts of methods in protracting the litigation. It is not surprising that civil disputes drag on and on. The misplaced sympathy and indulgence by the appellate and revisional courts compound the malady further. The case in hand is a case of such misplaced sympathy. It is high time that courts become sensitive to delays in justice delivery system and realise that adjournments do dent the efficacy of the judicial process and if this menace is not controlled adequately, the litigant public may lose faith in the system sooner than later. The courts, particularly trial courts, must ensure that on every date of hearing, effective progress takes place in the suit. 16. No litigant has a right to abuse the procedure provided in Code of Civil Procedure. Adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system. The courts, particularly trial courts, must ensure that on every date of hearing, effective progress takes place in the suit. 16. No litigant has a right to abuse the procedure provided in Code of Civil Procedure. Adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system. 17.... 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 let in by it or the matter should be heard. The parties to a suit--whether the Plaintiff or the 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.” In the case of Nandlal (supra), Division Bench of this Court observed as under: “1. … The application was rejected on the grounds that the Power of Attorney was not produced, and also that, sufficient opportunities have been given for producing the evidence. Learned Tribunal noticed that on 13.3.2013, Nandlal was operated for cataract. He sought repeated adjournments in following six months period on the ground that he has been asked for checkups by the doctor, after every fifteen days. Learned Tribunal thereafter, fixed 10.4.2013, 7.5.2013, 9.7.2013 & 13.8.2013. Shri Nandlal did not appear and made a request to examine his son on his behalf, for which, the original Power of Attorney was not produced. 2. We do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal, rejecting the application for examining of the son as a Power of Attorney, in the absence of the original Power of Attorney. Sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant, after he had recovered from cataract operation. More than six months had passed, after the cataract operation, in which several dates were fixed for evidence. The appellant, did not avail the opportunities, on which the evidence is closed. 3. There is no error in the opinion of learned Single Judge that in the circumstances, the tenant wanted to delay and prolong the proceedings, on which the Tribunal rightly exercised his discretionary powers to close the evidence. The Special Appeal is dismissed” In the case of Gajanand (supra), Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed as under: “10. 3. There is no error in the opinion of learned Single Judge that in the circumstances, the tenant wanted to delay and prolong the proceedings, on which the Tribunal rightly exercised his discretionary powers to close the evidence. The Special Appeal is dismissed” In the case of Gajanand (supra), Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed as under: “10. If viewed the case of the petitioners-plaintiffs from above angle, in the light of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is found that the learned trial court had not only granted more than three adjournments to the plaintiffs to produce witnesses, but the court granted as many as 20 adjournments merely for producing the witnesses in support of their case, but the plaintiffs never cared to produce even a single witness for cross-examination. It is highly shocking that when the court closed the evidence on 21.12.2011, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed an application under Order 18 Rule 2 read with Section 151 CPC on 5.1.2012 in the Court for reopening their evidence greatly highlighting the act of the Presiding Officer with regard to his proceeding on half day leave as if he had no right to avail the casual leave and had committed a sin in availing the same. The petitioners mentioned in the application that the counsel and witness Smt. Radha Devi were present in the Court upto 3.00 PM, but the Presiding Officer of the Court was on half day leave till lunch and court started functioning at 3.30 PM and prior to that at 3.00 PM, they had left the court premises and come back to their home because of some urgent work, albeit the urgent work is not mentioned in the application. Surprisingly, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs did not take any trouble even to whisper about those five years, during which the case was repeatedly adjourned for plaintiffs' evidence and the plaintiffs for one or other reason or under one or the other pretext kept on seeking adjournments after adjournments. It is sad, but true that the litigants seek -and the court grant -adjournments at the drop of the hat. It is sad, but true that the litigants seek -and the court grant -adjournments at the drop of the hat. After the evidence was closed by the court on 21.12.2012, they again moved an application under Order 18 Rule 2 read with Section 151 CPC for reopening the evidence of the plaintiffs and when the court dismissed that application, the petitioners invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 11. In the final analysis, the upshot of the above discussion is that the petitioners plaintiffs are found to have left no stone unturned in procrastinating the trial of the suit. They are found to have abused not only the process of law, but are found to have abused the judicial process of court also. The learned trial court, having narrated the unending lineal of five years proceedings ad-longum, is found to have rightly dismissed the application and rightly closed the plaintiffs' evidence. The impugned order is just and proper and suffers from no infirmity. The writ petition, in contra, is found to be totally bogus, irrelevant and devoid of any substance, which deserves to be dismissed at the threshold with exemplary cost.” In the case of Jubeda (supra), Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed as under: “4. … Despite giving many opportunities, again one more opportunity on 5.4.2013 was granted for cross-examination while rejecting the objections raised by defendant. Again one application came to be filed by the defendant, which was also rejected on 31.05.2013 with the direction to the defendant to positively cross-examine the (5 of 9) [CW-11294/2015] plaintiff, else the same will be closed. Despite that no cross-examination was done. Again an opportunity on 04.09.2013 was granted to the defendant but no cross-examination was done. On 18.10.2014, the plaintiff was present for the cross-examination since morning but counsel for the defendant prayed for time and the same was granted at the cost of Rs. 500/-. Ultimately, the cross-examination was closed on 08.01.2015. 5. While mentioning this history of so many opportunities having being granted to the defendant, learned trial Court has observed that more than adequate opportunities were granted to the defendant for cross-examination of plaintiff but in vein. It was also observed that recalling the order dated 08.01.2015 and further giving the opportunity to cross-examination will certainly amount to abuse of judicial process and will hamper the quick dispensation of justice. It was also observed that recalling the order dated 08.01.2015 and further giving the opportunity to cross-examination will certainly amount to abuse of judicial process and will hamper the quick dispensation of justice. In these facts and circumstances, the application filed by the petitioner defendant came to be rejected. 13. If the impugned order is scrutinized on the touch stone of the principles propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in aforesaid judgment, it is obvious that no such circumstance exists for which it can be assumed that the trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction or has not properly exercised the same, which may warrant exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. In the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, there was no justification for the trial Court to allow the application filed by the petitioner defendant under Article 151 CPC. Thus, the order impugned rejecting the same is perfect. In view of above, the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is bereft of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. Thus, the petition is accordingly dismissed.” In the case of Meeta Agarwal (supra), Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed as under: “17. Adjournments in the suit should not be granted without just cause and when unnecessarily warranted be, by a reasoned order or on a proper application in writing there being filed to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The learned court below should also adhere to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Shiv Cotex vs. Tirgun Auto Plast Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. reported in: 2011 (9) SCC 678 , wherein it has been held that adjournments should be ordinarily limited to three/four times in the life of the suit as also as per the provisions of Order 17 CPC.” 10. Even on merits, the case of the petitioner is not supported by Co-ordinate Bench judgment in the case of Sheo Karan (supra). Therefore, in view of the judgments as quoted above, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of material aspects, arrived at the only logical conclusion. This Court is in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, in view of the judgments as quoted above, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court has passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of material aspects, arrived at the only logical conclusion. This Court is in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Court. There is no violation of principles of natural justice and no palpable error has crept in the order of the learned Trial Court warranting interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 11. In light of the above, the present writ petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.