CRP 138/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned Sr. counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner and Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the defendants/respondents. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitu tion of India challenging the orders dated 05.02.2010 and 12.03.2010 passed by t he learned Munsiff No.1, North Lakhimpur in Title Suit No.6/2007. By order dated 05.02.2010 the petition filed by the petitioner being pet ition No.157/2010 seeking adjournment on the ground of marriage of his sister ha s been turned down on the ground that a number of adjournments were earlier gran ted including the adjournment subject to payment of cost and the grounds which h as been taken seeking adjournment on 05.02.2010, does not constitute the suffici ent ground for further adjournment. In the said order it has also been observed that the cost earlier directed to be paid has also not been paid. By order dated 12.03.2010 the petition filed by the petitioner being pet ition No.283/2010 has been rejected on the ground that the order dated 05.02.201 0 does not require any modification. It appears from the impugned orders dated 05.02.2010 and 12.03.2010 that though the petitioner instituted the suit being Title Suit No.6/2007 and the ca se was fixed for recording the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff in the year 2007, adjournments were asked for and granted by the learned Court below on mere asking for about 3(three) years. On 05.02.2010 when the case was again fixed fo r examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, an application was filed again prayi ng for time on the ground of the plaintiff’s sister’s marriage without however a ny supporting document. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order XVII CPC empowers the Court to grant tim e and adjourn the hearing from time to time, at any stage of the suit, if suffic ient cause is shown for granting such adjournment. Proviso to sub-rule (1) stipu lates that no such adjournment shall be granted more than 3 times to a party dur ing hearing of the suits. Though the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order XVII imposes an em bargo on the Court to grant more than 3 adjournments to a party during the heari ng of the suit, the said embargo is not absolute. The Court despite such embargo has the power to grant time provided sufficient cause/exceptional circumstances for seeking adjournment is demonstrated. In the instant case from the year 2007 to 2010 adjournment after adjourn ment were prayed and granted at the instance of the plaintiff. On 05.02.2010 an adjournment was sought for on the ground of marriage of the sister without howev er, as noticed above, enclosing any supporting document. The learned Court below has found that no sufficient ground could be demonstrated by the plaintiff/peti tioner for adjournment, which in my considered opinion has rightly been done. In view of the above, it is not a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and hence the petitio n is dismissed. No cost.