JUDGMENT: - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The plaintiffs - petitioner's application for adjournment was rejected by the trial court vide Annexure No.5 on the ground that earlier on three occasions plaintiffs such prayer of adjournment had been granted and in the light of proviso added to Order 17 Rule 1 C.P.C. no adjournment beyond three dates could be granted by the court. The petitioners subsequently moved the trial court with another application under Section 151 C.P.C. (Annexure No.6) for permitting Ram Raj, one of the plaintiffs present in the court, to be cross - examined by the defendant's counsel. But that application too has been dismissed by the trial court vide Annexure No.7. Thereafter, only the petitioner approached the revisional court which also did not find favour of the court and has been dismissed vide Annexure No.9. 3. The petitioners on 30 - 3 - 2005, which was the 4th date fixed for final hearing (evidence) in the suit, had moved an application for adjournment. As the plaintiffs had already taken three earlier adjournments it actually weighed with the trial court in rejecting the prayer and passing the impugned order. That date being the 4th occasion, the plaintiff to the suit as was seeking adjournment of hearing in the suit it was not allowed in view of the proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 C.P.C. as amended vide C.P.C. (amendment) Act, 1999 (operative w.e.f. 01 - 07 - 2002). The ground taken by the petitioner for adjournment was that the plaintiff P.W.1 had fallen ill and could not reach the court to be present for his cross - examination as such. His examination - in - chief had already been recorded earlier. The ground of illness, which had been taken for such adjournment, was though quite substantial but the gravity of the same has been out - weighed by the trial court simply keeping in view the referred proviso to Rule 1 of Order 17 C.P.C. Subsequent thereto the very next day (31 - 32005) when the plaintiff Ram Raj (P.W.1) appeared before the court and moved an application under Section 151 C.P.C. offering himself for the cross - examination, that prayer has also been dismissed by the trial court. Whether or not there were exceptional reasons or the circumstances beyond the control of the plaintiff on the date when their prayer for adjournment was refused, is a matter of appreciation by the court while granting or refusing such prayer of a party. In this context in order to appreciate the propriety of the order passed by the courts below, a reference to the provisions of Order 17, C.P.C. as a whole, is necessary and it is quoted as below: - “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) Cost of adjournment - In 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 fit]: [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 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]." 4. A perusal of the aforesaid provisions no doubt makes it clear that the statute provides guidelines not to grant adjournment sought by one party in the hearing of a suit on more than three occasions. But at the same time it also does not put complete fetters on the court's discretion for such grant of adjournment in case, the party suffering on account of such grant of adjournment can be compensated by award of costs and there are exceptional reasons or circumstances beyond the control of that party seeking adjournment to proceed with the hearing. Therefore, to say that this proviso added to Rule 1 by C.P.C. Amendment Act. 1999, takes away the discretion of the court to grant adjournment on fourth occasion would be a wrong interpretation of the Rule. Thus, the number, as provided in the aforesaid proviso, has only limited adjournment and can be quite safely interpreted to be just directory and not mandatory. It is true that grant of any adjournment let alone the first, second or third adjournment, is not a right of a party. Thus, the number, as provided in the aforesaid proviso, has only limited adjournment and can be quite safely interpreted to be just directory and not mandatory. It is true that grant of any adjournment let alone the first, second or third adjournment, is not a right of a party. The court granting adjournment must be satisfied by the party making such prayer that special and extraordinary circumstances are available for grant of adjournment and the court is not supposed to make a routine order in this regard. The proviso to Order 17, Rule 1, C.P.C. has to be necessarily read down so as not to take away the discretion of the court in the extreme hard cases, for instance, a party may be suddenly hospitalized on account of some serious ailment or there may be serious accident or some act of God leading to some devastation. In such circumstances it cannot be said that though the circumstances may be beyond control of a party, further adjournment cannot be granted because of restrictions of three adjournments, as provided in the proviso to Order 17, Rule 1, C.P.C. The court can grant adjournment even in cases, which may not directly come within the category of circumstances beyond the control of a party, by resorting to the provision of higher costs which can also include punitive costs, in the discretion of the court for granting adjournment beyond three occasions, while considering such prayer of a party. However, the court must have regard to the Injustice that may result on refusal thereof, with reference to the particular facts of a case. In this context the case law of Salem Advocate Bar Assn. Vs. Union of India, (2005)6 SCC 344 is quite relevant. The law laid down in para 30 and 31 of the judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court squarely applies to the facts of the present case. 5. The petitioners - plaintiffs' adjournment application had been rejected by the trial court on 30 - 3 - 2005 as P.W.1 Ram Raj, who was in the process of being cross - examined, was not present. 5. The petitioners - plaintiffs' adjournment application had been rejected by the trial court on 30 - 3 - 2005 as P.W.1 Ram Raj, who was in the process of being cross - examined, was not present. It was noted that the witness on account of illness could not reach the court and obviously if one witness who was in the process of cross - examination is not present on account of his illness such prayer for adjournment should have been allowed, subject to award of costs. On the very next day i.e. 31 - 3 - 2005 this witness was presented before the trial court but his cross - examination was not permitted and the second impugned order was passed on the petitioners' application given under Section 151 C.P.C. In view of the availability of an exceptional circumstance, which was beyond control of the other plaintiff to produce P.W.1 (the other plaintiff) in the witness box on 30 - 3 - 2005, the prayer seeking adjournment made by the petitioners should have been granted. Of course, if the court finds in the face of it, the reasons of illness given to be false it does have a right to reject such prayer but here what appears to have actually clicked to the court for refusing the adjournment is nothing but the provision contained in the proviso to Rule 1 of Order 17, C.P.C. and that does not appear to be a just and proper approach and interpretation of the court to that provision. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to the trial court to permit cross - examination of P.W.1 Ram Raj on the very next date when the suit is listed for hearing and thereafter to further/proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with law. Petition allowed.