CRP 422/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr SC Keyal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr PK Roy, le arned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as Mr T Islam, learned Centr al Government Counsel, appearing for the respondent No.4. As agreed to by learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in Money Suit No.58/2006 pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge No.3, Guwahati, by the present petition have challenged the order dated 16th September 2010 passed by learned Civil Jud ge rejecting the application filed by the petitioners praying for adjournment to produce PW3 for cross-examination by the defendants, on the ground that 5 adjou rnments have already been taken by the petitioners and the grounds shown in the application are not at all satisfactory. The effect of the said order passed by learned court below is expunction of the examination-in-chief of PW3. The learne d court below, by the said order, has fixed 13th October 2010 as the date for ev idence of DWs. Learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to various orders passed in the aforesaid suit, submits that the ground on which the application for adjo urnment has been refused, that is, the petitioners have already obtained 5 adjou rnments is not correct, as 16th June 2010 was the first date fixed for cross-exa mination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses. On this date, an adjournment was sought f or and was granted to the petitioners fixing 19th July 2010, when the case was a djourned at the instance of the petitioners. According to learned counsel, the c ase was then fixed on 16th August 2010 for cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses, when the plaintiffs were present with 2 witnesses, but cross-examinat ion could not be carried out, as the learned counsel for the defendant was busy elsewhere. The case was then taken up on 17th August 2010, when 2 PWs were cross -examined and case was fixed on 16th September 2010 for cross-examination of PW3 . On this day, an application was filed seeking adjournment on the ground of per sonal difficulties of PW3, who was to come from Jorhat for adducing evidence, an d hence the learned court below ought not to have dismissed the application, and ought to have allowed the prayer for adjournment. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the defendants in the suit, submits that since at least on earlier two occasions i.e. on 16th Jun e 2010 and 19th April 2010, adjournments were sought for and granted, the learne d court below has not committed any illegality in refusing the prayer for adjour nment on 16th September 2010. Learned Central Government Counsel also supports the submission of learn ed counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. I have perused the order-sheet as produced by learned counsel for the pe titioner. It appears that the suit was fixed for cross-examination of 3 PWs on 1 6th June 2010, when an adjournment was sought for and granted by the learned cou rt below fixing 19th July 2010 for production of plaintiffs’ witnesses for cross -examination by the defendants, on which date also case was adjourned at the ins tance of the petitioners. On the next date, i.e. on 16th August 2010, the plaint iffs’ witnesses were present, but could not be cross-examined due to the absence of learned counsel for the defendants and as such, the case was fixed for cross -examination of PWs on 17th August 2010. On this date, 2 plaintiffs’ witnesses w ere cross-examined and case fixed for production of PW3 on16th September 2010, w hen an application has been filed by learned counsel for the petitioners/plainti ffs praying for time on the ground of personal difficulties of PW3, who is a res ident of Jorhat, for which could not come to Guwahati for cross-examination. The said prayer was rejected by the impugned order dated 16th September 2010 on two grounds namely that 5 adjournments have already been prayed for and granted, and that the ground shown in the application seeking adjournment is not suffici ent. Under Order 17 Rule 1 of CPC, adjournments beyond 3 times at the hearing stage t hough should not be allowed, but the Court is not powerless to grant adjournment beyond 3 times, provided good and sufficient cause is shown. The order-sheets, as noticed above and as produced by learned counsel for the petitioners reveal t hat the petitioners/plaintiffs earlier did not obtain 5 adjournments at the hear ing stage. That being the position, one of the grounds on which the adjournment was refused, is non-existent. That apart, the averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay reveal that PW3, who is a resident of Jorhat, could not present himself for cross-examination by the defendants owing to his person al difficulties. Keeping in view the aforesaid position, I am of the view that the learne d court below ought to have granted one more opportunity to the plaintiffs/ peti tioners to produce PW3 for cross-examination by the defendants. Hence, the impug ned order dated 16th September 2010 is set aside. The parties are directed to ap pear before the learned Court below on 13th October 2010, when it shall fix a da te for production of PW3 for cross-examination by the defendants. It is made cle ar that no further adjournment shall be granted to the petitioners/plaintiffs, i f any such prayer is made on the date to be fixed for cross-examination of PW3. The learned Court below, thereafter, shall proceed with the recording of evidenc e of the defendants’ witnesses and decide the suit in accordance with law. The revision petition is disposed of as indicated above. No costs.