UGRASEN TIWARI Vs. NARVADESHWAR TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for the cancellation of a decree in Suit No. 326 of 1997. It transpires that the plaintiff sought repeated adjournments and, eventually by an order dated 4.10.2004, the trial court rejected the adjournment application on the ground that continuous adjournment on five occasions was sought and therefore, no further adjournment would be allowed. An application for the recall of the order was also rejected by an order dated 3.3.2005. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a revision which was allowed and the order dated 4.10.2004 and 3.3.2005 was set -aside on payment of cost of Rs. 200/ -. The defendant, being aggrieved by the order of the revisional court has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the proviso clearly indicates that no adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during the hearing of a suit and submitted that the word "shall", as indicated in the proviso, clearly indicates, that the provision was mandatory and therefore it was no longer open to the revisional court to grant further adjournment, especially, when adjournment on three previous occasions had already been taken. The learned counsel, consequently submitted, that the order of the revisional court was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and against the teeth of the mandatory provision provided under Order XVII Rule 1 C.P.C. In the opinion of the Court, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit. The provision of Order XVII Rule 1 C.P.C. is procedural in nature and even though the provision is couched in a negative manner, it does not mean that under exceptional circumstances, the court is not empowered to grant an adjournment. The Court has the inherent power to grant an adjournment in exceptional circumstances on sufficient reasons being recorded. In the present case, the revisional court had rightly granted the adjournment upon payment of cost of Rs. 200/ -. The Supreme Court in Sheikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar and others : AIR 2006 SC 396 has held that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C. is not mandatory in nature and that the Court has the inherent power to grant further time to file a written statement even after the expiry of 90 days. The same principle would squarely apply in Order XVII Rule 1 C.P.C. Consequently, I do not find any error in the impugned revisional order. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.