JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order of Munsif, Pali dated April 19, 1989 by which he did not grant further time to the defendant-petitioner to file his written statement Facts of the case giving rise to the revision petition may be summarised thus. 2. Civil Suit No. 18/87 was filed by the plaintiff non-petitioner for the recovery of the arrears of rent and ejectment. The written statement was not filed by the defendant petitioner till April 19,1989. An application was moved on 19th April, 1989 that the draft of the written statement was ready, it could not be typed as the counsel for the defendant-petitioner had gone out of station and one day's time may be granted for filing it After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Munsif passed the order under revision. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner that the draft of the written statement was ready on 19th April, 1989, it could not be typed and request was made for only one day's adjournment forgetting it typed, learned trial court had jurisdiction to grant adjournment under Order 17 Rule 1, C.P.C. and it was due to the fault of the counsel that it could not be typed earlier. He further contended that a litigant should not be allowed to suffer for the mistake on the Part of his counsel. He relied upon A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 41. 4. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff non-petitioner that the revision petition is not maintainable, learned trial court has not acted with illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order, the defendant himself was not present on 19th April, 1989 and he relied upon State v. Indian Engineering Works, 1987 (II) R.L.R. 86. 5. It is not disputed that the suit was filed in the early part of the year, 1987 and till April, 1989 written statement was not filed despite several adjournments. It has not been shown in the revision petition as to why the written statement could not be filed during this period of about two years. 5. It is not disputed that the suit was filed in the early part of the year, 1987 and till April, 1989 written statement was not filed despite several adjournments. It has not been shown in the revision petition as to why the written statement could not be filed during this period of about two years. Litigants and Advocates are gaining impression that adjournment will be granted on mere asking despite the provision of O. XVII C.P.C. dealing with adjournments, becoming more stringent For the removal of this impression, it is necessary to take a serious view of the matter. It cannot, therefore, be said that the learned trial court has acted with material irregularity and illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction in proceeding with the case without the written statement. It has also been held in State v. Indian Engineering Works, 1987 (2) Rajasthan Law Reporter 86 . that a revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. is not maintainable against such an order. In Smt. Lachi Tewari & Ors. v. Director, Land Records and others, , (3) A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 41 the matter relates to a rule pending in the High Court in which the petitioner had engaged three lawyers, they did not appear on the date on which the rule was listed and it was dismissed in default of appearance. In this context, their Lordships observed that the petitioner has nothing to do in the rule after engaging the advocates for conducting his case. In the instant case, the defendant was not even present on 19th April, 1989 for signing his written statement. If he would have been present, the written statement would have been typed and filed the same day after putting his signatures on it. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with costs. The trial court is directed to dispose of the case expeditiously in accordance with law.Revision dismissed. *******