Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010114372026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/229/2026 SRI KAILASH SAHU SON OF- LATE JAHIT SAHU, RESIDENT OF- BICHU BASTI, P.O. AND P.S.- DOKMOKA, DISTRICT- KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM VERSUS SMT JOGITA SAHU AND ANR DAUGHTER OF LATE KASHINATH SAHU, RESIDENT OF- BICHU BASTI, P.O. AND P.S.- DOKMOKA, DISTRICT- KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM PIN-782441 2:SMT PURNIMA SAHU DAUGHTER OF LATE. KASHINATH SAHU WIFE OFMOHAN SAHU RESIDENT OFBICHU BASTI P.O. AND P.S.- DOKMOKA DISTRICT- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN-78244 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P P DUTTA, MS P SARMA,MS. P P DAS Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 10.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. P. P. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sri Kailash Sahu impugning the order dated Page No.# 2/5 12.03.2026, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karbi Anglong, Diphu, in Title Suit No. 12/2024, whereby the prayer for grant of further adjournment to adduce evidence of plaintiff’s witnesses was rejected and the case was fixed for adducing of evidence of defendants’ witnesses. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the date, when the impugned order was passed, the petitioner could not produce his witnesses before the trial court due to difficulty in transport service as due to ensuing election at that time, the bus service was not proper. He submits that this reason of irregularity/unavailability of public bus service was taken into consideration by the trial court and it was of the opinion that the reason for seeking adjournment by the petitioner was found to be just. However, only due to the embargo contained in Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the trial court rejected the prayer for adjournment and fixed the case for evidence of defendants’ witnesses. 4. He submits that the trial court erred in considering the embargo contained inproviso to Order 17 Rule 1of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to be an absolute embargo. He submits that in the circumstances which are beyond the control of the petitioner, the court has the authority to granting adjournment even beyond the stipulated three times as provided under Proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. The learnedcounsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the loss caused to the other side due to the seeking of adjournment by the petitioner, in an appropriate case, may be compensated by awarding cost. However, unless the petitioner is allowed to adduce his evidence in the pending trial, he shall be greatly prejudiced. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the Page No.# 3/5 petitioner has cited a ruling of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of “P. V. Sumant Vs. Jayanta Baruah and others”, reported in “(2015) 6 GLR 407”. He, therefore, submits that considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order may be interfered with and the petitioner may be granted an opportunity to adduce evidence in the pending suit i.e., Title Suit No. 12/2024. 6. As regards the embargo contained in proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the restriction for grant of adjournment beyond three times, the Apex Court has observed in the case of “Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamilnadu Vs. Union of India” reported in “AIR 2005 SC 3353” as follows: - “31. While examining the scope of proviso to order XVII, rule 1 that more than three adjournments shall not be granted, it is to be kept in view that proviso to order XVII, rule 2 incorporating clauses (a) to (e) by Act 104 of 1976 has been retained. Clause (b) stipulates that no adjournment shall be granted at, the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party. The proviso to order XVII, rule 1 and order XVII, rule 2 have to be read together. So read, Order XVII does not forbid grant of adjournment where the circumstances are beyond the control of the party. In such a case, there is no restriction on number of adjournments to be granted. It cannot be said that even if the circumstances are beyond the control of a party, after having obtained third adjournment, no further adjournment would be granted. There may be cases beyond the control of a party despite the party having obtained three adjournments. For instance, a party may be suddenly hospitalized on account of some serious ailment or there may be serious accident or some act of God leading to devastation. It cannot be said that though circumstances may be beyond the control of a party, further adjournment cannot be granted because of restriction of three Page No.# 4/5 adjournments as provided in proviso to order XVII, rule 1.” 7. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has also observed in the case of P.V. Sumant Vs. Jayanta Baruah and others (supra) as follows: - “15. From the ratio of the aforesaid judgment, it becomes clear that proviso to order XVII, rule 1 and order XVII, rule 2 have to be read together conjointly and if it is so read, order XVII does not forbid grant of adjournment beyond three times when the circumstances are beyond the control of the party. In such a case, there is no restriction on number of adjournments that could be granted. The Apex Court made it explicitly clear that it cannot be said that even if the circumstances are beyond the control of a party, after having obtained third adjournment, no further adjournment would be granted.” 8. On perusal of the order dated 07.04.2026, which was passed after a review application was filed by the petitioner to review the impugned order, the trial court has observed that the grounds shown in the adjournment petition by the present petitioner appears to be justified. However, due to the statutory embargo contained in the Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the trial court rejected the prayer for grant of adjournment. 9. We have seen from the judgment of the Apex Court as well as from the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court referred above that in an appropriate case where the adjournment is sought for by a party under the circumstances which are beyond the control of that party, the embargo of not granting adjournment beyond three times may not be strictly applicable and in an appropriate case, the court may grant adjournment beyond the stipulated three times by citing just proper reasons for the same. Page No.# 5/5 10. In the instant case, though the trial court itself has arrived at a conclusion that the reasons cited by the petitioner for seeking adjournment were just reasons, however, only because of the statutory embargo, the said adjournment was not granted. 11. This court is of considered opinion that under such circumstances, prohibiting the present petitioner from adducing evidence in support of his case may not be serving the cause of justice. The loss suffered by the defendants side on account of any adjournment which may be granted to him may be compensated by imposing just cost. 12. Since, the law in this regard is well-settled and since this court is of considered opinion that issuance of notice to the respondent would further cause delay in disposal of the pending trial of Title Suit No. 12/2024, notice to the respondents is waived and the instant petition is allowed. 13. The trial court is directed to give an opportunity to the present petitioner to adduce evidence by the plaintiff side on the next date fixed before the trial court, i.e., 30.06.2026, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-, which shall be paid to the defendants on that day. 14. The payment of cost shall be condition precedent for allowing the present petitioner to submit evidence on affidavit of witnesses for his side. 15. This civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant