1.

INTRODUCTION

A putting off or postponing of proceedings; an ending or dismissal of further business by a court, legislature,
or public officialeither temporarily or permanently.

If an adjournment is final, it is said to be sine die, "without day" or without a time fixed to resume the work.
An adjournment is different from a recess, which is only a short break in proceedings.

In legislatures, adjournment officially marks the end of a regular session. Both state and federal lawmakers
vote to determine when to adjourn. The exact timing depends upon multiple factors such as work load,
election schedules, and the level of comity among lawmakers. Because a session can end with unfinished
legislative business, adjournment is commonly used as a means of political leverage in securing or delaying
action on important matters. In the U.S. Congress, where the single annual legislative session usually ends in
the fall, the president may call an adjournment if the House and Senate cannot agree upon a date.

In parliamentary procedure, an adjournment ends a meeting. It could be done using amotion to adjourn.

A time for another meeting could be set using the motion to fix the time to which to adjourn. This motion
establishes an adjourned meeting.

To adjourn to another time or place means to suspend proceedings until a later stated time or place.

Adjournment is an associated concept like adjournment for a session, adjournment for the term,
adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, adjournment of a hearing, adjournment of a trial, adjournment
of the court, the postponement of the hearing of a case until some future date. The adjournment maybe to a
specified date or for an indefinite period (sine die).

The dismissal by some court, legislative assembly, or properly authorized officer, of the business before
them, either finally, which is called an adjournment sine die, without day; or, to meet again at another time
appointed, which is called a temporary adjournment. The constitution of the United States, art. 1, s. 5, 4,
directs that "neither house, during the session of congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for
more than three days, nor to any other place, that that in which the two houses shall be sitting.

In law, to adjourn means to suspend proceedings to another time or place, or to end them.

Page | 1
 2. ORDER 17 RULE 1-CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
1908

1. Court may grant time and adjourn hearing.- (1) The court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of
the suit grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the Suit
for reasons to be recorded in writing:

Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the
suit.

(2) Costs of adjournmentin every such case the court shall fix a day for the further hearing of the suit, and
shall make such orders as to costs occasioned by the adjournment or such higher costs as the court deems
fits:

Provided that,

(a) when the hearing of the suit has commenced, it shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses
in attendance have been examined, unless the court finds that, for the exceptional reasons to be recorded by
it, the adjournment of the hearing beyond the following day is necessary,

(b) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the
control of that party,

(C) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another court, shall not be a ground for adjournment,

(d) where the illness of a pleader or his inability to conduct the case for any reason, other than his being
engaged in another court, is put forward as a ground for adjournment, the court shall not grant the
adjournment unless it is satisfied that the party applying for adjournment could not have engaged another
pleader in time,

(e) where a witness is present in court but a party or his pleader is not present or the party or his pleader,
though present in court, is not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness, the court may, if it thinks fit,
record the statement of the witness and pass such orders as it thinks fit dispensing with the examination in
chief or cross-examination of the witness, as the case may be, by the party or his pleader not present or not
ready as aforesaid.
Page | 2
HIGH COURT AMENDMENTS

Allahabad.- Add the following further proviso:

Provided further that no such adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of calling a witness not
previously summoned or named, nor shall any adjournment be utilised by any party for such purpose, unless
the Judge has made an order in writing under the proviso to Order -XVI, Rule 1. (24.7.1926).

Bombay.- In Order XVII. for the existing Rule 1 and its marginal notes, substitute the following as Rule 1
and marginal notes:

1. Court may grant time and adjourn hearing. (1) The Court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any
stage of the suit, grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing
of the suit;

Provided that where a case is fixed for taking evidence, the Court shall record the evidence of all the
witnesses present for either party unless the Court hearing the case for reasons to be recorded in writing
finds it necessary to adjourn the se.

(2) Costs of adjournment. In every such case the Court shall fix a day for the further hearing of the
suit, and may make such order as it thinks fit with respect to the costs occasioned by the adjournment,
ordinarily not exceeding fifty rupees in ordinary suits and one hundred rupees in special suits:

Provided that, when the hearing of evidence has once begun, the hearing of the suit shall be continued from
day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment
of the hearing beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded.

Gujarat.- Substitute sub-rule (2) as in Bombay except that for fifty read thirty and for one hundred
read forty-five.

,Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi.- (1) Add the following at the beginning of sub-rule(1):

Subject to the provision of Order XXIII, Rule 3.

(2) Add the following as sub-rule (3):

(3) Where sufficient cause is not shown for the grant of an adjournment under sub-rule (1) the Court shall
proceed with the suit forthwith. (As amended on 21.7.1937).

Page | 3
 3. PERMISSIBILITY OF REOPENING OF MATTER AT BELATED
STAGE:

Where there was grant of permission to plaintiff to adduce rebuttal evidence after closure of evidence, of
defendants. But by inadvertence matter was straightway posted for arguments. No opportunity was afforded
to plaintiff by Court to adduce evidence. Though several adjournments had been granted to plaintiff in suit,
that will not forbid Court in allowing his application for adducing further evidence at belated stage. Held,
that bar imposed by proviso to Rule 1 of Order XVIII will not apply.

Page | 4
 4. PROCEDURE IF PARTIES FAIL TO APPEAR ON DAY FIXED:

Where on the adjourned date the parties or any of them fail to appear, the court may proceed to dispose of
the suit in one of the modes mentioned in Order IX dealing with consequence of non-appearance of parties;
discussed earlier or make such order as it thinks fit. (Order XVII, Rule 2).

The Explanation added to Rule 2 provides that where the evidence or a substantial portion of the evidence of
any party has already been recorded and such party fails to appear on any day to which the hearing of the
suit is adjourned, the court may, in its discretion, proceed with the case as if such party were present.

Where the defendants husband who was acting as her pairokar and her counsel, duly authorised to appear,
act and plead on her behalf were both present in court on the date of hearing and the counsel reported no
instructions, which means that he refused to appear for the defendant-appellant, the defendant could not be
said to be present in court. The decree was technically passed ex parte.

The defendant appellant did not make any application subsequently showing sufficient cause for his non-
appearance. The decree could not therefore be set aside on any of the grounds on which a decree could be set
aside under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. in case it was deemed to be an ex parte decree passed under Order IX,
Rule 13, C.P.C. read with Rule 2 of Order XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Page | 5
 5. RIGHT OF PARTY TO PROVE ITS CASE BY LEADING
EVIDENCE:

Such right could not be taken away by Court save otherwise in case of failure to produce evidence and such
failure was required to be recorded in the order leading to closure of evidence. It was only then that the
Court could proceed to decide suit after doing away with evidence of party. Held, that Court by no stretch of
imagination could decide suit straightway discarding evidence of party though Courts enjoy such power
under C.P.C. Rule 6, Order XII where claim was admitted.

Rule 2 of Order XVII does not apply where no day has been fixed for the hearing, but applies where the
hearing of a suit has been adjourned and on the adjourned date the parties or any of them fail to appear.

Rule 3 of Order XVTI applies only to cases where the parties are present and have not satisfied the court as
to the existence of any adequate reason for their not having done what they were directed to do.

Rules 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive and where the pleader pleads no instructions and the party is not
prepared to go on rule 2 and not rule 3 applies. Rule 3 means that the court has discretion to decide the case
on the adjourned date or not, but if it does decide the suit, it will be a decision on the merits and appearance
on behalf of the defendant would be assumed, whether he was in fact present or not and the decree cannot be
regarded as ex parte. Only an appeal and no revision lies against an order under Order XVII, Rule 3.

Where on an adjourned date, a case is decided in the absence of the defendant and the order is described as
an ex parte one, it cannot be said that merely because the court gave some reasons for its decision, it
becomes a decision on merits so as to take the case out of the provisions of Order IX.

Page | 6
 6. REMEDY IN CASE OF DEFAULT UNDER RULES 2 AND 3 OF
ORDER XVII:

Where there is default under both the rules, i.e., the party having got an adjournment not only fails to
perform the act for which adjournment was given but also fails to appear on the adjourned date, Rule 2
should be applied; but if there are materials to justify a decision on merits, Rule 3 should be resorted to.

If the suit came to be disposed of on account of the non-appearance of the plaintiff on a hearing day but it
was not at the instance of the plaintiff that the suit was adjourned for the day it came to be disposed of, the
court can proceed only under Order XVII, Rule 2 in one of the modes prescribed by Order IX, presumably in
the manner prescribed by Order IX, Rule 8. An application under Order IX, Rule 9 by the plaintiff would be
maintainable in such a case.

Page | 7
 7. CONSEQUENCE OF NON-APPEARANCE ON ADJOURNED DATE
OF HEARING AND REMEDY:

A case in which the defendant obtains an adjournment on the date of final hearing of the suit and fails to
appear on the adjourned date is covered by Rule 2 of Order XVII, and an application under Order IX, Rule
13 will lie even if the court proposes to act under Rule 3. Rule 3 applies when a party is present, or is
deemed to be present, and has defaulted in doing the acts mentioned in Rule 3.

Where the Court on non-appearance of the defendant even if expressly proceeded to decide the case under
Order XVII, Rule 3 instead of deciding it ex parte under Order XVII, Rule 2, the defendant was not
precluded from moving an application under Order IX, Rule 13, for setting aside such decree.

When the defendant obtains adjournment of the suit but fails to appear on the adjourned date, the matter is
governed by Order XVII, Rule 2 and not by Order XVII, Rule 3. Consequently, if the court wants to dispose
of the suit, it should dispose it of in accordance with the provisions of Order IX that is ex parte, but should
not decide it on merits.

Page | 8
 8. ADJOURNMENTS -- WHEN NOT TO BE GRANTED

In the case of Aftab Alam : R.M.Lodha : J J Shiv Cotex Versus Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. & Ors.
Adjournments -- When not to be granted -- Held; No litigant has a right to abuse the procedure provided in
the CPC -- Adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system -- It is
true that cap on adjournments to a party during the hearing of the suit provided in proviso to Order 17 Rule 1
CPC is not mandatory and in a suitable case, on justifiable cause, the court may grant more than three
adjournments to a party for its evidence but ordinarily the cap provided in the proviso to Order 17 Rule 1
CPC should be maintained -- When we say 'justifiable cause' what we mean to say is, a cause which is not
only 'sufficient cause' as contemplated in sub-rule (1) of Order 17 CPC but a cause which makes the request
for adjournment by a party during the hearing of the suit beyond three adjournments unavoidable and sort of
a compelling necessity like sudden illness of the litigant or the witness or the lawyer; death in the family of
any one of them; natural calamity like floods, earthquake, etc. in the area where any of these persons reside;
an accident involving the litigant or the witness or the lawyer on way to the court and such like cause -- The
list is only illustrative and not exhaustive -- However, the absence of the lawyer or his non-availability
because of professional work in other court or elsewhere or on the ground of strike call or the change of a
lawyer or the continuous illness of the lawyer (the party whom he represents must then make alternative
arrangement well in advance) or similar grounds will not justify more than three adjournments to a party
during the hearing of the suit -- The past conduct of a party in the conduct of the proceedings is an important
circumstance which the courts must keep in view whenever a request for adjournment is made -- A party to
the suit is not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure and pleasure and has no right to determine
when the evidence would be let in by it or the matter should be heard -- The parties to a suit -- Whether
plaintiff or defendant -- Must cooperate with the court in ensuring the effective work on the date of hearing
for which the matter has been fixed -- If they don't, they do so at their own peril -- Insofar as present case is
concerned, if the stakes were high, the plaintiff ought to have been more serious and vigilant in prosecuting
the suit and producing its evidence -- If despite three opportunities, no evidence was let in by the plaintiff, in
our view, it deserved no sympathy in second appeal in exercise of power under Section 100 CPC -- We find
no justification at all for the High Court in upsetting the concurrent judgment of the courts below -- The
High Court was clearly in error in giving the plaintiff an opportunity to produce evidence when no
justification for that course existed.

Page | 9
 9. ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE APPLICATION

IN THE COURT OF _____

In the matter of:

_____ Versus _____

FIRNO._____
U/s_____IPC
Police Station _____

APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1- That the above noted case is pending before this honble court and is fixed for today.
2- That the counsel of the accused is _____ from _____ and is not in position to appear before this Honble
court.
3- That now the applicant wants to get adjourned the above noted case for next date of hearing.

It is, therefore, prayed that the above noted case may kindly be adjourned for next date of hearing
Date: _____

APPLICANT/ACCUSED

Through Counsel:

_____Advocate, _____

Page | 10
 CASE STUDY
Rajesh Kumar Sharma vs State of M.P. on 12 March 2015

Case diary is not available. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Police Station-Patan
registered a counter case at crime no. 13/2015 against the complainant party of crime no. 12/15. He,
therefore, prays that the case diary of the aforesaid crime number be also requisitioned for just adjudication
upon the bail plea of the applicant.
Prayer is allowed.

Learned Panel Lawyer is directed to make available the case diary of the present caseand the aforesaid crime
number on the next date of hearing. A copy of this order be given to the learned Panel Lawyer.

List the case in the week commencing from 19/01/2015.

(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE AKM M.Cr.C. No. 18251/2014. 07.01.2015 Shri Deepak Pendharkar,
learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Pradeep Gupta, learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant/State.
Case diary is not available. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that several opportunities had been
granted for submission of the case diary, despite that thecase diary is not submitted today.
Case diary is not available. Learned counsel for applicants submits that the Police Station Maharajpur,
District Chhatarpur has registered a counter case at crime No. 98/2014. The case diary of the said case may
kindly be requisitioned for just adjudication of the applicants' bail application.
Prayer is allowed.
Learned Government Advocate is directed to make available the case diary of the above crime number along
with the case diary of the present case positively on the next date of hearing.
Case diary is not available. Several opportunities have been given to the non- applicant-State for production
of the casediary. One more opportunity is granted, but, this will be the last opportunity for submission of
the case diary.
List the case on 20/12/2014.
(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE AKM M.Cr.C. No. 18526/2014.
12.12.2014 Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior counsel with Shri Bhupendra Kaurav, learned counsel for the
applicant.

Page | 11