IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JODHPUR

Civil Suit No. 234/ 2019

Topic Assigned: Cost of Adjournments

In the Matter of:

NIKHIL JAIN… ………...................................................PLAINTIFF / NON-APPLICANT

VERSUS

TUSHAR JAIN ..………........................................................DEFENDANT / APPLICANT

(Application forAdjornament under Or. XVII Rr. 1 of CPC)

PROJECT for “CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE & LIMITATION ACT I”

Submitted by:

Karan Arora

PRN:16010223063

Group: A

Semester/Year: VII /4th Year

Batch: 2016-21

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune

Under the guidance of:

Ms. Megha Nagpal

Assistant Professor

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune

(July-September, 2019)

1
 DECLARATION

This Research Project based on a hypothetical civil dispute relating to ‘Cost of

Adjournments’, submitted by the undersigned to Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA,
Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune for the course ‘Civil Procedure
Code and Limitation Act I’ as part of Internal Assessment is based on an imaginary
situation which has no relation to any person living or dead. The research work has not
been submitted elsewhere for award of any degree or any other purpose whatsoever.

The ‘draft’ portion of the project has been submitted purely for understanding
applicability of provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as part of research
project for the aforesaid course. The designation/s, if any, given in the project are
purely hypothetical.

The contents of the project are original and not plagiarised. The material borrowed
from other sources and incorporated in the project has been duly acknowledged.

I have also taken due care that the contents of my project are not similar or same as
another learner‘s project for the aforesaid course.

I understand that I could be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any,
even if detected later.

(Signature of the Learner)

Name of the Learner: Karan Arora

PRN:16010223038

Batch: 2016-21

Group: A

2
 INDEX

S. NO. CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1. HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION 4

2. CONTROVERSIAL/DEBATABLE QUESTIONS 5

3. SECTIONS AND RULES APPLICABLE 6-7

4. CASE-LAWS/JUDGMENTS 8-10

5. REMEDY/ANSWER 11

6. APPLICATION FOR REJECTION OF PLAINT 12-15

3
 HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION
Paintiff Mr Nikhil Jain filed a suit for partition of his ancestral property in district court
Jaipur. After the Plantiff Dev Jain let in and closed his recording of evidence. Court
ordered the defendant Tushar Jain to lead his evidence. For this three adjournments and
2 last opportunities were given to the Defendants but no defense witness was present in
the court. On last opportunity Tushar Jain filed an application for adjournment of
leading the evidences

4
 CONTROVERSIAL/DEBATABLE QUESTIONS

QUESTION 1: Whether Civil court has power to grant adjournments more than 3
times?

5
 SECTIONS AND RULES APPLICABLE
Court may grant time and adjourn hearing:
(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 for reason to be recorded in writing:

Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a
party during hearing of the suit.] (Order XVII, Rule 1).

6
 CASE-LAWS/JUDGEMENTS
IRAC ANALYSIS:

M/S Shiv Cotex vs Tirgun Auto Plast P.Ltd.& Ors11

Bench: Aftab Alam, R.M. Lodha

Issue: (1) Whether civil court has discretionary power to grant adjournments more than
3 times?

Rule: Order XVII Rule 1of Civil Procedure Code

Analysis: In this case, court stated that no party to suit has right to abuse the procedure
provided under Order XVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is discretionary
power of the court to grant adjournments more than 3 times on just and reasonable
cause to delay the proceedings such as sudden illness of parties, death of any family
member or any natural calamities.But ideal cap of 3 adjournments under Order XVII
Rule should be maintained.

2 Judges Bench further said that court will see the past conduct of parties before
granting the adjournments more than 3 times. Court further observed that party in suit –
both Plaintiff and defendants should maintain a decorum for smooth working and
functioning of the court

Conclusion: It is concluded that it is not mandatory for court to grant adjournments

more than 3 times. It is discretionary power of the court to grant the adjournments on
the just and reasonable reasons given by the parties.

Bharat Rajput vs Amrik Singh Aulakh & Others

Bench: S.H. Kapadia, K.S. Radhakrishnan, Swatanter Kumar

Issue: (1) Whether parties to provided last opportunities in the case of adjournments?

Rule: Order XVII Rule 1 of CPC, 1908;

Analysis: In this case court held that adjournments is not a right of parties. The
adjournment under Order XVII Rule 1 should be granted on party showing extra
ordinary circumstances. It is not mandatory for court to grant adjournments more than 3
times.

1
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7532 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 30105 of 2010)

7
3 Judge bench further observed that courts should consider intenet of legislature before
granting the order of adjournments. Court said that there is no word called last
opportunity under Order XVII Rule 1 of CPC. It is the discretion of the court to grant
the adjournments order more than 3 times. Court can give more adjournments if it
thinks that not giving adjournments will not deliver ends of Justice.

Conclusion: It is concluded that intent of legislature should be look by the courts while
granting adjournment order more than 3 times. Under Order XVII Rule 1 discretionery
power is given to courts to meet ends of Justice. Court should examine facts and
circumstances before granting adjournments order more than 3 times.

8
REMEDY/ANSWER

QUESTION 1: Whether civil courts can grant more than 3 adjournments under Order
XVII Rule 1

ANSWER: It is submitted that after observing reasoning of above 2 cases we can

conclude that court possess discretionary power to grant adjournment order more
than 3 times under Order XVII Rule 1 of the CPC. But the reason given by the
parties for the adjournment decree should be justiable and fair.

Application to Hypothetical Situation: If the reasoning of above two is made

applicable in the present hypothetical situation then it answer of above situation is as
follows

Court has provided 3 adjournments and 2 last opportunities to defendant Tushar Jain in
present situation. Application of further adjournment should be rejected because
reasonable opportunity (almost 6) times was provided to lead his evidence. But the
defendant wilfully remains absent from this. Thus it will be against the intention of
legislature it court thinks to grant adjournments. This application of Defendant should
be rejected.

9
 APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENTIN IN THE DISTRICT COURT,

JAIPUR

IN THE COURT OF THE Radheshyam Tyagi CIVIL JUDGE,

JAIPUR

Civil Case No. 234/ 2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

NIKHIL JAIN............................................… ………..PLAINTIFF / NON-APPLICANT

VERSUS

TUSHAR JAIN..........................................… ……………..DEFENDANT / APPLICANT

S. No Particulars

1. Application under Order XVII Rule 1 FOR ADJOURNMENT

2. Affidavit In Support.

Jodhpur (Signature)

Date: 07/08/2019 Applicant-in person

Address: House No 324 Mansarover

Colony, JAIPUR

10
 IN THE COURT OF THE RADHESHYAM TYAGI CIVIL JUDGE,
JAIPUR
Civil Application No. 456 / 2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

NIKHIL JAIN ....................................… ………..PLAINTIFF / NON-APPLICANT

VERSUS

TUSHAR JAIN......................................... … ……………..DEFENDANT / APPLICANT

APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT FOR ADJOURNMENT

UNDER ORDER XVII RULE 1 OF CPC

THE DEFENDANT MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTS AS UNDER:

1. That the defendant is resident of the H.No. 324, Mansarover Colony, Jaipur.

2. It is submitted before Hon’ble court defendant is suffering from heart problems

from last 3 months. ‘

3. That the doctor defendant for 2 months bed. Therefore Defendant is unable to
come for recording of defense evidence .

4. That the medical reports of this has been attached with the application.

5. Defandant request hon’ble court to grant the adjournment order under Order
XVII Rule 1 to any date date after two months

PRAYER:

In the face and circumstance of the present case, the defendant humbly prays that
this Hon'ble Court:

a) To grant a Adjournment order

(Stamp)

11
 It is prayed accordingly.
Signed/-

Mr. Tushar Jain(Defendant)

Through

Jaipur (Signature)

Date: 09/08/2018 Applicant in Person

12
 IN THE COURT RADHESHYAM TYAGICIVIL JUDGE, Jaipur

Civil Suit No. 234/2019

IN THE MATTER OF:

NIKHIL JAIN ........................................… ………..PLAINTIFF / NON-APPLICANT

VERSUS

TUSHAR JAIN.........................................… ……………..DEFENDANT / APPLICANT

Affidavit of Mr. Nikhil Jain, age about 50, H No.324, Mansarover colony, Jaipur.

I, the above named deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. I am the Defendant in the present matter and am conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the present case.

2. I am authorised and competent to swear and depose this affidavit.

3. I have read the contents of the accompanying application under Order VII Rule
11and say that the same are true to the best of my knowledge and derived from
records maintained by me.

4. I say that I adopt the contents of the accompanying applications part and parcel of
my present affidavit as the same are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

Verified at Jaipur on this, the 7th day of August 2019 that the contents of paragraphs 1
to 3 of my above affidavit are true to my knowledge and nothing material or relevant
has been concealed there from.

DEPONENT

Jodhpur (Stamp)

Date: 07/08/2019

13