CRP 105/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. A.R. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents. The petitioners by the present petition have challenged the order dated 19.01.2006 passed in Title Suit No.26/2003 wherein and whereunder the suit of th e petitioners has been dismissed for non-prosecution on dismissal of the applica tion bearing No.149 filed on 16.01.2006 seeking adjournment on the ground of ill ness of the petitioner/plaintiff. It appears from the order dated 19.01.2006 passed by the learned Civil J udge, Sr. Division, Dhubri in Title Suit No.26/2003 that the application for adj ournment has been rejected on the ground that more than 3(three) adjournments, w hich is allowable under Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC, has already been allowed and as such no further adjournment could be granted. Proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 17 of the CPC stipulates that no adjournments shall be granted for more than 3(three) times to a party during the hearing of the suit. The same, however, will not be an absolute bar on the part of the Court to grant adjournment provided good and sufficient reason is de monstrated by the party seeking adjournment. In the case in hand, the application seeking adjournment has been filed on 19.01.2006 on the ground that the plaintiff could not appear along with the w itnesses due to his illness. The said aspect has not at all been considered by t he learned Court below and such prayer has been rejected on the ground that more than 3(three) adjournments have already been granted. That being the position, the order dated 19.01.2006 passed by the learne d Court below in T.S. No.26/2003 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the lea rned Court below for passing necessary order on the application filed, keeping i n view the observation made above. The petitioners shall appear before the learn ed Court below on 08.10.2010. The learned Court below, thereafter issue notice t o the defendants as they have not entered appearance before this Court. The revision is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.