1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.1645 2008 Bank of India Petitioners Vs. Anil Achuth Warrier & anr. Respondents Mr.Ajay Khare i/b. M/s.M.S.Bodhanwalla & Co. for petitioners. Mr.V.C.Kotwal and Mr.Prakash Shah i/b. PDS Legal for resp.nos.1 and 2. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. April 3, 2008 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the Bank which is aggrieved by the order dated 29/10/2005 passed by the Division Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai thereby allowing Revision Application No.279 of 2006. . T.E. & R. Suit No.130/147 of 2004 has been filed by the present respondents for eviction of the petitioner - Bank and in the said Suit, Interim Notice No.271 of 2006 was filed praying for setting aside the order dated 30/6/2006 passed by the Trial Court. This Interim Notice taken out by the plaintiffs was rejected with costs on 15/11/2006 and 2 the same was carried in revision by the plaintiffs, which Revision Application has been allowed as noted hereinabove by the impugned order. . On 30/6/2006 the trial Court was pleased to pass the following order: "By agreement suit cannot be adjourned. Six seven adjournments are taken on same ground. Hence the adjournment application is rejected." . There is no doubt that adjournments were sought on six seven occasions and they were granted. The larned Judge referred to the Scheme of Order XVII Rule 1 of CPC and more particularly the proviso thereunder and the said scheme was brought into force by the amendment effected from 1/7/2002. It states that no adjournment should be granted after three adjournments. As per the trial Court, the same is a mandatory provision and, therefore, the Interim Notice could not be granted. . The Revision Court referred to a decision of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. 3 Maimuna Begam [AIR 1994 BOMBAY 353] [AIR 1994 BOMBAY 353] [AIR 1994 BOMBAY 353] as well as the scheme of Order VIII Rule 2(4) of CPC. The learned counsel for the bank is right in his submissions that after the amendment to the Civil Procedure Code and brought into force from 1/7/2002, the reasoning set out by the Revision Court by relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Maimuna (Supra) and by referring to Order XVIII Rule 2(4) is unsustainable. Nonetheless, that by itself would not be a ground to interfere with the said order. . From the record it is clear that the parties were negotiating for an amicable settlement and it is clear that till 20/9/2006 the settlement talks were in progress and the Interim Notice is filed on or before the same date. It is thus clear that the adjournments were not granted on the asking of the plaintiffs and they were granted only to facilitate an amicable settlement between the parties. In the peculiar facts of this case, the Trial Court was not justified in placing reliance on the provision below Order XVII Rule 1 and to hold that the Interim Notice could not be allowed as six seven adjournments were already granted more so when the Court itself had granted more than three adjournments for settlement. 4 Some accommodation by the Courts is necessary if the parties are expected to explore the possibilities to settle the dispute amicably and there is no doubt that in the instant case both the parties had expressed their intentions to try for such a settlement and, therefore, the adjournments were granted. The trial Court therefore, fell in error in rejecting the interim notice to set aside the order dated 30/6/2006. The revision court rightly stepped in and granted the interim notice. The order passed by the revision court and impugned in this petition does not call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. . Hence the petition is rejected summarily. Trial of the suit is expedited. (B.H.MARL