Honble MILAP CHANDRA JAIN, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Munsiff (East), Bhilwara dated November 26, 1990 by which he has closed the cross-examination of the plaintiff Kedarmal P.W. 1. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus: 2. November 26, 1990 was fixed for the plaintiffs evidence. On this day, the examination-in-chief of the plaintiff Kedarmal P.W. 1 was recorded before lunch. The learned counsel for the defendant No. 1, Shri Laxmilal Kothari, Advocate and the learned counsel for the defendant No. 2. Shri Chandra Singh Bolia, Advocate did not appear in the Court for cross-examining he plaintiff Kedarmal P.W. 1 till 4.30 P.M. and the learned Munsiff closed his statement by his order under challenge. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners that the counsel for the defendant-petitioners went to the trial court in the early hours on November 26, 1990 to cross-examine the plaintiff Kedarmal, at that time the trial court ordered that the case would be taken up after lunch break for cross-examination, when the counsel for the defendant went to trial court to participate in the proceedings, the trial court was busy in recording the statements of the witnesses in a criminal case, after doing works in other Courts the counsel again went to the trial court to cross-examine the plaintiff and there he came to know that the statement of the plaintiff Kedarmal P.W. 1 has been closed without cross-examination. He further contended that the learned trial court had no jurisdiction to close the statement of Kedarmal P.W. 1 particularly when the counsel for the defendant appeared before the Court many times on that day, the trial court should not have passed such an order before closing hours of the day, the counsel for the defendants submitted an application the same day before the trial court alongwith the affidavits of Shri Laxmilal, Advocate and Shri Chandra Singh Bolia, Advocate and the trial court dismissed it the same day without assigning sufficient reasons. He also contended that on that date the case was adjourned to 11-02-1991 for recording the statements of the remaining witnesses of the plaintiff and as such closure of the plaintiffs cross-examination was meaningless, the said affidavits have not been properly considered, note given below the statement of Kedarmal P.W. 1 that the defendants counsel do not want to cross-examine is wholly wrong and it simply show that the trial court is highly prejudiced with the defendants. He lastly contended that the suit is for the ejectment of the defendants and they would be greatly prejudiced if they do not get an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff Kedarmal P.W. 1. 4. Admittedly, the examination-in-chief of the plaintiff Kedarmal P.W. 1 was recorded on 26-11-1990. It is stated in para No. 2 of the revision petition as under: "That the counsel for the defendant-petitioner went to the trial court in the early hours of the day i.e. on 26-11-1990 and he was prepared to cross-examine the plaintiff and to get his statement recorded. At that time the trial court ordered that the counsel for the defendant should come after lunch break. When the counsel for the defendant went to the trial Court to participate in the proceedings then the trial court was busy in recording the statement of the witnesses in criminal cases. Since the counsel for the defendant No. 2 was busy in his work in other courts because of the reason that, Addl. P.P. was sick and hence when he went to the trial court to cross-examine the plaintiff by closing the evidence of the plaintiff without cross-examination." "Shri Laxmilal Kothari, Advocate has stated in paras No. 2 and 3 of his affidavit as follows........." Shri Chandra Singh Bolia, Advocate has stated in para No. 1 of his affidavit as under.........: 5. It is clear from the affidavit of Shri Laxmilal, Advocate that he himself did not want to cross-examine the plaintiff Kedarmal P.W. 1 on 26-11-1990 on account of his many other cases fixed for hearing before other Courts. It is also clear from the affidavit of Shri Chandra Singh Bolia, Advocate that he also wanted to cross-examine the plaintiff Kedarmal P.W. 1 after lunch break. To say the least, the first two sentences of para No. 2 of the revision petition, quoted above, are inconsistent with the said affidavits. It is also clear from the affidavit of Shri Chandra Singh Bolia, Advocate that he also wanted to cross-examine the plaintiff Kedarmal P.W. 1 after lunch break. To say the least, the first two sentences of para No. 2 of the revision petition, quoted above, are inconsistent with the said affidavits. The averments made in these two sentences of para No. 2 of the revision petition do not at all find mention in the application moved on 26-11-1990 after the statement was closed. It can well be said that the learned trial court did not itself discontinue the statement of the plaintiff Kedar Mal P.W. 1. It must have been done at the instance of the learned counsel for the defendants as is apparent from these affidavits. The learned Munsiff has observed in his order dated 26-11-1990 passed on the application of the defendants moved after 4.30 P.M. as follows: 6. It is clear from the application of the defendants and the affidavits of their counsel Shri Laxmilal Kothari and Shri Chandra Singh Bolia, Advocates that they did not appear before the learned Munsiff prior to the closure of the cross-examination as they were busy in other Courts. Provisoes (c) and (e) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order 17, C.P.C. run as under: "(c) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be ground for adjournment. (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." In view of these facts, circumstances and above-quoted provisions of law, the learned Munsiff was perfectly justified to close the statement of the plaintiff Kedarmal P.W. l. By C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976, the law relating to adjournment has been made more stringent but in practice the adjournments are sought on any pretext and are granted. The provisions of Order XVII, C.P.C. are observed more in their breach than in compliance. The provisions of Order XVII, C.P.C. are observed more in their breach than in compliance. This is resulting in manifold increase in the age of litigation and huge accumulation of arrears of cases in almost all courts and the poor litigants suffer. They are put to great inconvenience and unnecessary expenses. The Presiding Officers and the practising lawyers are not put to any loss as the former get their salary and the latter get their fees. This state of affairs is bringing disrepute to the administration of justice. 7. In view of the frequent requests for adjournments without permissible ground, it is becoming difficult for the Presiding Officers to give the required quota of work as per the circular of this Court. To check further deterioration, it is necessary and expedient that the provisions of Order XVII, C.P.C. are complied within letter and spirit. Refusal of adjournments on impermissible grounds will enable the juniors to get briefs. 8. Consequently, the revision petition is summarily dismissed.