R.S. Pathak, C.J.
1. This is a defendants' revision petition against an order dated Aug. 23, 1975, made by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Hamirpur closing the defendants' evidence in the suit.
2. A suit for possession through preemption was filed by the respondent against the petitioners. On Aug. 23, 1975, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge made an order that as no witness has been summoned through the court and as the petitioners themselves had not brought the witnesses with them no adjournment could be granted. It appears that a statement was made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the wit-nesses could not be brought because the petitioners were ill. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge, however, observed that the suit had been lingering on for more than six months and three adjournments had already been granted, and therefore in the circumstances no further adjournment was called for. Accordingly, he made the impugned order.
3. A perusal of the order sheet shows, no doubt, that the petitioners had not applied themselves to contesting the suit with the diligence which the law expects of a party. Adjournments were taken from time to time for various reasons, for filing the written statement and subsequently for producing evidence. On Aug. 3, 1975 when the case had been fixed for the third time for producing evidence a statement was made by petitioners' counsel that because of the petitioners' illness the witnesses could not be brought to court. It does not appear that any written application verified by affidavit was made in support of this submission. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge was justified in rejecting the ground taken in support of the application for adjournment.
4. But the learned Senior Subordinate Judge has omitted to consider that in cases where adjournment is sought by a party the court should examine whether an order of costs would not compensate the rival party for any inconvenience or loss suffered by it. The present case is one where that should have been considered. Upon the various facts and circumstances of the case, it seems to me that the case should have been adjourned on costs to the respondent. Having regard to the earlier conduct of the petitioners, an order of costs in the sum of Rs. 100 would have been appropriate.
5. The revision petition is allowed. The order dated Aug. 23, 1975 is set aside, and the parties are directed to appear before the learned Senior Subordinate Judge on April 18, 1977. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge will dispose of the application for adjournment in the light of the observations made above. There is no order as to costs in this revision petition.
6. The original record shall be sent down to the Court of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge forthwith.