circumstances and could have granted the prayer of the petitioner. However, the trial Court did not choose to do so but was inclined to pass a reasoned order. Having verified the reasons that are available in the impugned order, this Court is unable to subscribe to the views expressed by the trial Court. Order XVII Rule 1(2)(d) of C.P.C. indicates that illness of a pleader when pleaded during the course of trial proceedings, the trial Court is entitled to refuse adjournment provided it records its satisfaction that the party applying for adjournment could have engaged another pleader in time. The impugned order does not indicate any such satisfaction being recorded by the trial Court. Order XVII Rule 1(2)(e) of C.P.C. indicates that when a witness is in attendance and a party or pleader on the opposite side is not ready to cross-examine the witness, it is for the trial Court to record the statement of the witness dispensing with the cross-examination of the witness. The impugned order does not indicate fulfillment of this provision on part of the trial Court. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances, when the sickness of the learned counsel was the cause for failure to cross-examine the witnesses, who is in attendance, and when the opposite party never had any objection for that and when the trial Court did not choose to exercise the jurisdiction in the manner provided under law, such an order cannot be supported and is liable to be upset.
