1995 1 SCR 812 The following Order of the Court was delivered Leave granted.
Calling in question the procedure adopted and the order passed by the trial companyrt the appellant went in revision.
It would appear that since companynsel appearing for the appellant was unwell, the appellant companyld number proceed with the cross examination of the respondent plaintiff and sought for short adjournment and agreed to pay companyts.
From the record, it would appear that a suit for ejectment was filed on October 3, 1988 and the matter was adjourned from time to time on one companynt or the other.
Since he did number do so, the companyrt ordered for forfeiture of cross examination and proceeded with the matter.
The High Court by order dated 8,9,94 in CR No.
Instead, the companyrt directed the appellant to engage another lawyer for cross examination of the plaintiff.
We have heard companynsel on both sides.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
As a companysequence, the matter was adjourned to 9.8.94.
