JUDGMENT
N.C. Kochhar, J.
1. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6.5.1992 passed by the learned District Judge, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 238/87. The brief facts are as under:
2. Shri pars Chhatwani (the deceased) was the late husband of the plaintiff Smt. Jyoti Chhatwani. The deceased had taken from the defendant-appellants life insurance policy No. 50610397 dated 15.11.1984 for Rs. 25,000/-. The deceased died on account of heart-attack on 1.12.1984 and, thereafter, on 6.12.1984 his widow Smt. Jyoti Chhatwani (the plaintiff) sent an intimation in this respect of the defendant by filling a form claiming the amount in regard to the policy in question. Certain information was asked for by the defendant-appellant including the proof in regard to the date of birth of the deceased. The said information was supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant who, vide letter dated 13/17/7/1985 repudiated the claim for the amount on the ground that the deceased had concealed material information in the proposal form submitted before issuing of the policy inasmuch as the defendant was in possession of the proof that the deceased was having pain in the right shoulder and right hip and had suffered a fracture in left leg and in this connection … he remained on leave w.e.f. 3.8.1982 to 7.8.1982 and from 14.5.1983 to 2.7.1983 and also consulted a medical practitioner whereas in the proposal form he had given the information that he had not suffered from any ailment which necessiated … taking the leave for more than seven days. Since the claim was repudiated by the defendant and the amount against the insurance policy was not paid to the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, on 14.9.1987 contending that the grounds taken in the repudiation letter dated 13/17.7.1985 were baseless and that the plaintiff was entitled to get the amount against the policy taken by her late husband from the defendant and that the defendant was liable to pay the suit amount to the plaintiff who was the nominee in the said policy. The suit was contested by the defendants-appellants on the ground that the material facts were not disclosed by the deceased in the proposal form submitted by him. On the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed by the learned trial court on 1.2.1991 to the effect whether the deceased had taken the policy in question from the defendant and to the effect … that the deceased had concealed material facts in the proposal form and as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to receive the amount against the policy. The learned trial court after framing the issues adjourned the case to 17.5.1991 on which date a joint request was made by the learned Counsel for the parties for adjournment and the request was granted by the learned trial court, who adjourned the case to 24.8.1991. On 24.8.1991, the learned Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 22.11.1991 for the evidence of the defendant-appellant. On 22.11.1991 the case was put up before the court and request for adjournment was made as no witness of the defendant was present and since the request was not opposed the case was adjourned to 17.1.1992. Even on 17.1.1992 no witness of the defendant was present and the case was adjourned to 17.4.1992 clearly mentioning that that was the last opportunity being given. On 17.4.1992 again no witness of the defendant was present or summoned and request was made for adjournment but since no ground was coming forward as to why no witness of the defendant was present, the learned trial court declined the request for adjournment and closed the evidence of the defendant. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff did not produce any evidence and, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, vide the impugned judgment dated 6.5.1992 the learned trial court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs and directed the defendant-appellant to pay the sum of Re. 25,000/- along with interest and bonus. Hence this appeal by the defendant.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case.
4. Shri MD Agrawal, the learned Counsel for the defendants-appellants, has contended that the learned trial court was not justified in closing the evidence of the defendant and more opportunity ought to have been granted to the defendant.
5. The details about the opportunities having been granted to the defendant have already been mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Rule 1 of Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with the adjournments, reads as under:
1.(1) The court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit
6. The bear reading of the abovesaid provision shows that it is only when sufficient cause is shown that the court can grant adjournment to a party. In other words, if there is no sufficient cause shown by a party, who seeks adjournment, the court cannot grant adjournment. It is not disputed before me that no cause whatsoever was shown by the learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant before the learned trial court on 17.4.1992 as to why no witness was produced or summoned and it is also not disputed that the defendant had been cautioned on the earlier date of hearing on 17.1.1992 that last opportunity was given to the defendant to produce evidence on 17.4.1992. Considering this fact, it cannot be said that the learned trial court wrongly exercised his discretion in closing the evidence of the defendant. The contention of Shri Agrawal is, therefore, rejected.
7. The next contention raised by Shri Agrawal is that even in the plaint it had no where been mentioned that the deceased was having sound health and had not furnished any wrong details in the proposal form.
8. It cannot be disputed that the information that was furnished by the deceased was in the possession of the defendant who only would be knowing what was mentioned in the proposal form and it was the defendant who was to produce and prove the said proposal form. The deceased died due to heart attack and even in the letter repudiating the policy it has not been mentioned that the deceased had suffered from any… ailment during his life time and had been on medical leave for that purpose. The plaintiff had specifically alleged in para 14 of the plaint that the grounds taken are false and baseless and as such it cannot be said that the plaintiff did not plead that the grounds of repudiation were wrong.
9. No other point has been raised before me.
10. Finding this appeal to be without any merit, I dismiss it with costs.