Order 17 of CPC provides for grant of adjournment and it contains 3 rules inclusive of 2 sub rules and 7 clauses, 2 provisos and 1 explanation and as usual in the CPC probably the customary that each rule contains provision which are numerous as if the Order itself is a separate enactment. Legislature does not waste this word so the saying goes. But this seems to be an enormous exception to this slavish Order.

The Order regarding adjournment should have been added to Order XVIII – hearing of a Suit and examination of witnesses in a concise form with a precise meaning and that this Order shall be repealed to include at the end of Order 18.

“Oxford says adjourn means to postpone for the purpose of reconvening there, it is a break in the process – grant of adjournment is with trivial and integral part of judicial process and adjournment from time to time is rather unsustainable in the context of the legal proceedings.”

Rule 1 says that no adjournment shall be granted for not more than 3 times but it has not been made clear as to the period which intervene between two times.

Rule 2 speaks about Court – it is not necessary when the hearing goes on, on day today basis, it is not possible to post the case every following day and this expression in sharp contrast with Adjournment from time to time and also posting it from day today which also not possible to refuse grant of adjournment on the ground that the Pleader is engaged in another Court, which is a strange concept in the matter of refusal to grant adjournment.

It is further strange that the Court is expected to satisfy itself that the Party who seeks adjournment did not have sufficient time or opportunity to engage another Pleader. How it can be expected that the Pleader who is engaged in some other Court can create a circumstance whereby the Party did not have sufficient time to engage another Pleader in time.

Is it a just expectation that the Party was unable to engage another Pleader and give him full account of the brief and also the stage of the Proceedings which would enable a new Pleader to take over and get along with the case. Therefore the various provisions contained in this Order may be reconsidered and the Draft herein below may be added to Order 17 Rule 1.

“The Court may at any stage of the Suit grant time to parties both or either for the purpose of reconvening or recording evidence as prayed for or suo moto with an Order that the case would be disposed of on merit without further unnecessary adjournment.”