Sl.13 18.08.2026 Court No.6 BP C.O. 2689 of 2026 Md. Gaffar -versus- Smt. Anjum Arah Mr. Bikash Chandra Halder ..for the petitioner Mr. Bhagbat Chaudhuri ..for the opposite party This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against an order dated 14th July, 2026 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Chandernagore, Hooghly in Title Suit No. 152 of 2024. By the order impugned the prayer for adjournment was rejected and the defendant was barred from adducing any form of evidence. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that on the date fixed for filing of the affidavit in chief the petitioner arrived the court a bit late due to rally organized by a political party. He submits that an opportunity be given to the petitioner to adduce evidence in the said suit. Mr. Chaudhuri, learned advocate appears for the opposite party. He submits that the petitioner is trying to drag the instant suit by praying for adjournment on frivolous ground. 2 Record reveals that on 23rd February, 2026 the defendant/petitioner prayed for an adjournment on the ground of unavailability of documents. The learned trial judge after allowing the prayer for adjournment fixed 13th March, 2026 for evidence of the defendant witness no.1 and in default the evidence of the defendant shall stand closed. On 13th March, 2026 the defendant again filed an adjournment petition and such prayer for adjournment was allowed fixing 16th April, 2026 for evidence of the DW- 1. It was specifically recorded in the said order that no unnecessary adjournments will be granted. Again on 16th April, 2026 the defendant prayed for an adjournment and the learned trial judge by an order dated 16th April, 2026 closed the evidence of the defendant. After the aforesaid order was passed the defendant filed the affidavit in chief at or about 3 p.m. but did not serve copy of the same and the learned trial judge kept the said affidavit in chief on record and fixed a date for argument. On 12.05.2026 that is the date fixed for argument the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the learned trial judge fixed 17th June, 2026 for hearing of such application. On 17th June, 2026 a prayer of the petitioner to adduce evidence as DW-1 was allowed on contest subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- by the defendant to the plaintiff and in default the evidence shall stand closed for the defendant. On 14th July, 2026 the defendant again filed an adjournment 3 petition on the ground that he could not arrange the amount of cost imposed. It appears from the order dated 17th June, 2026 that the prayer of the petitioner to allow the defendant to adduce evidence was allowed subject to payment of cost. Since the cost was not deposited the learned trial judge passed the order dated 14th July, 2026 debarring the petitioner from adducing any form of evidence. Thus it appears that the defendant/petitioner herein prayed for adjournment on several occasion. However, since the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that a last opportunity be given to the petitioner to adduce evidence, this Court is inclined to allow such prayer subject to certain conditions. The petitioner shall be allowed to adduce evidence if the DW-1 appears before the learned trial judge on the next date fixed for adducing evidence subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite party at least a day prior to the next date fixed before the learned trial judge. If the DW-1 remains present on the next date and the cost is paid, the learned trial judge shall allow the defendant to adduce evidence. It is, however, made clear that if the cost is not paid within the time limit as indicated hereinbefore this Court order shall not enure to the benefit of the petitioner and the civil revisional application shall stand dismissed without any further reference to this Court. 4 With the above observations and directions, C.O. 2689 of 2026 stands disposed of. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)