ORDER : 1. This is defendant's revision against the order dated 27-2-1952 of the Subordinate Judge, Bhopal, in civil suit No.98 of 1951, granting an adjournment, prayed for by the defendant, on payment of Rs.100 as costs. 2. Plaintiff's suit was for a sum of Rs.1060 said to be due on a promissory-note executed by the defendant. After the issues were framed, the suit was fixed for plaintiff's evidence on 18-7-1951 when he closed his evidence and the hearing was fixed for defendant's evidence on 20-8-1952, but the case was adjourned to 12-9-1951 and again to 14-11-1951 on a prayer by the defendant for producing his evidence. On the latter date the defendant filed an application for amendment of the written-statement which after due consideration, was disallowed on 21-1-1952 and the case was fixed again for defendant's evidence on 27-2-1952. On this date again, the defendant prayed for an adjournment on the ground of his illness. Witnesses were not summoned or produced. The learned Subordinate Judge referred to the several previous adjournments on the prayers of the defendant and observing that "he was doing nothing but causing delay and therefore substantial costs were liable to be saddled," granted an adjournment ordering the defendant to pay Rs.100 as costs to the counsel for the plaintiff. It is against this order that the revision petition is filed. 3. It is contended that the costs should be commensurate with the claim only to compensate the opposite party for the expenses incurred and should not be imposed by way of penalty and therefore the Court had acted without jurisdiction or at least with material irregularity. Reference is made to the decision in Gajendra Shah v. Ram Gharan, AIR 1930 oudh 171, which fully supports the contention. It is observed that : "The principle which the Court awarding the costs should always bear in mind is that it should order the payment of a sum commensurate with the costs, which in the opinion of the Court, the party ready to proceed will have to incur owing to the adjournment. The amount to be awarded should not be one of the nature of penalty or of punishment." In that case the suit was of a small cause nature for a sum of Rs.75 and the adjournment was prayed for filing a written-statement by defendant 1. The amount to be awarded should not be one of the nature of penalty or of punishment." In that case the suit was of a small cause nature for a sum of Rs.75 and the adjournment was prayed for filing a written-statement by defendant 1. The learned Judge imposed a cost of Rs.50 for the adjournment winch, it appears, was not necessarily caused by his such prayer, but because the defendant 2 was not served and was absent. On a revision Misra, J. made the above observations and allowed the revision. 4. Sub-rule (2) of R.1 of O.17, Civil P.C. lays down that : "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." In this connection a Bench of the Lahore High Court observed in Mahomed Baksh v. Shahu, AIR 1942 Lah 162 (2) that : "An order for costs of adjournment must be an order within the meaning of O.17, R.1 that is, the costs must be such as can reasonably be held to be occasioned by the adjournment and as might reasonably compensate the other party for any expense to which they might be put by the adjournment. Costs should not be in the nature of penalty or punishment, nor should costs be awarded against a party who is not substantially at fault in the matter of an adjournment." In Jadavbai Narayandas v. Shrikisan, AIR 1946 Bom 113, a Bench of Bombay High Court made similar observations and added that : "The expression "occasioned by the adjournment" is deliberately used in order that the discretion of the Court should not be restricted to the taxable costs of the day. The principle underlying O.17, R.1(2) is that the party who is ready to proceed with the suit should be awarded such costs as can reasonably be held to be "occasioned by the adjournment", and as might reasonably compensate him for the expense incurred by reason of the adjournment." It would thus appear that reasonableness of the costs is the crux of the question and though full discretion is given to the Court concerned in this matter, that discretion is confined to the expression "occasioned by the adjournment." It is not necessarily true that an exact calculation of the expenses incurred by the opposite party, for the hearing, should be adhered to. This is obvious from the observations of the Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case above referred to. 5. While computing or fixing such costs caused by an adjournment various considerations might arise amongst which it is possible that the conduct of the party at fault in the trial or the proceedings, may be considered but that alone should not influence the Court concerned. In the case on hand, there is no doubt that the defendant was guilty of procrastination of the proceedings and the Court should have been more strict in the matter of the previous adjournments. It is, therefore, possible that the blemish has to be shared by the Court also. Taking all the facts into consideration, in my opinion, a sum of Rs.25 can reasonably and amply compensate the opposite party. It is obvious that the learned Subordinate Judge was influenced by only the delaying tactics and does not appear to have paid attention to the expression "occasioned by the adjournment". His order, therefore, is without jurisdiction or at any rate materially irregular. 6. The order of the Subordinate Judge dated 27-2-1952 is, therefore, set aside and it is ordered that the defendant shall pay a sum of Rs.25 as costs to the plaintiff for the adjournment granted. The subsequent part of the order stands. The record of the suit shall now be sent back to the trial Court for disposal according to law. The parties are ordered to appear in that Court on 23-9-1952. Revision allowed.