CRP 138/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the petiti oner. The petitioner, who is the defendant in Title Suit No.38 /2004 presently pending in the Court of the learned Munsiff No.1, Tinsukia has b y means of the present petition challenged the orders dated 22nd January, 2007 p assed in the said suit and the order dated 12th March, 2007 passed in Misc. (J) Case No.11/2007, by the learned Munsiff No.1 at Tinsukia, rejecting the prayer f or adjournment made on the ground of the illness of the defendant. In the suit filed by the present respondent as plaintiff against the present petitioner as defendant, the evidence on affidavit of the d efendant was filed and whereafter on 22nd November, 2006, the defendant was pres ent for cross-examination by the plaintiff, the case was, however, adjourned til l 19th December, 2006 at the instance of the respondent/plaintiff. On 19th Dece mber, 2006 a prayer for adjournment was made by the defendant, which was allowed subject to deposit of cost of Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred) fixing 22nd January , 2007 for cross-examination of the defendant’s witness, on which date, an appli cation was filed by the learned counsel appearing for the defendant for adjournm ent on the ground of the defendant’s illness, which was rejected on the ground t hat inspite of giving sufficient opportunity, the defendant has failed to produc e the witness for cross-examination and he has not deposited the cost of Rs.200/ - awarded vide order dated 19th December, 2006. The suit was thereafter, fixed for hearing arguments on 14th December, 2007, which was, however, adjourned to a future date at the insta nce of the defendant. The defendant thereafter, filed an application, which has been registered and numbered as Misc. (J) Case No.11/2007 praying for recalling the order dated 22nd January, 2007 and for allowing him to produce himself for c ross-examination. The said petition has been rejected by the learned Munsiff No .1, Tinsukia, vide order dated 12th March, 2007 on the ground that maximum adjou rnments as allowable under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC has already been granted and the defendant after taking adjournment for argument filed the application on a later stage. It has further been observed that since the maximum number of adjournme nt has been limited by Order 17 Rule 1, the Court cannot extend the time limit, which would be contrary to the provisions of the CPC. It appears from the order dated 22nd January, 2007 as we ll as 12th March, 2007 that the learned Court below did not disbelieve the averm ents of the petitioner that on 22nd January, 2007 he could not appear before the Court for cross-examination as he met an accident and was hospitalized. The vi ew expressed by the learned Munsiff No.1 that since under Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC maximum of 3 (three) adjournments at the hearing stage can be granted, the Court has no power to extend such time limit, is not correct view, as the Court is not powerless to extend such time and grant adjournment provided special circ umstances are demonstrated. In the case in hand, as noticed above, the plea taken by the petitioner/defendant that he could not appear for his cross-examination on 22nd January, 2007, as he met with an accident and was hospitalized, has not be en disbelieved by the Munsiff. That being the position, the defendant also cou ld not deposit the cost of Rs.200/- on 22nd January, 2007. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 22nd Jan uary, 2007 and 12th March, 2007 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Tinsukia are set aside. The defendant, however, shall pay a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) to the plaintiff, as because of him the disposal of the suit has been delayed. The payment of cost is the condition precedent. The defendant shall appear before the learned Court below on 15th November, 2010, on which date, the cost as awarded by this Court together with the cost of Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hu ndred) as awarded by the learned Munsiff vide order dated 19th December, 2006 sh all be deposited by the defendant. In the event of making such deposit, the sam e shall be released to the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff has not entered appearance in this p roceeding, the learned Munsiff thereafter, shall issue notice to the plaintiff a nd fix a date for appearance of the defendant for his cross-examination. No fur ther adjournment shall be granted to the defendant. The revision petition is accordingly allowed to the exte nt indicated above. No cost.