Order The petitioner is a company. This writ petition arises out of an order passed in Money Suit No. 7/2007 in which the petitioner is the plaintiff and which is pending in the Court of Sub-Judge-I, Chaibasa. 2. According to the writ petition, issues were framed in the Suit on 10.2.1989. It would also appear from the pleadings, which are not very accurate, that the suit is also for a declaration that rescinding of the agreement by the defendant (Government Department) is illegal. Pendency of suits seeking such declaration, even without any interim order, often dissuades the administrative authorities from proceeding in the matter. 3. After framing of issues on 10.2.2009 the 1st witness of the plaintiff (P.W.-1) was examined on 8.6.2009. Thereafter the petitioner-plaintiff just kept on seeking adjournments, The impugned order ,records that 14.5.2009, 22.5.2009, 9.6.2009, 11.6.2009, 16.6.2009,29.6.2009, 6.7.2009,7.7.2009, 13.7.2009,20.7.2009, 28.7.2009 were fixed, for plaintiff's evidence but no evidence was produced. Several of the above adjournments were granted on payment of costs ranging between Rs. 100/- to Rs. 250/-. 4. On 28.7.2009, the Court adjourned the matter for plaintiff's evidence to 30.7.2009 saying that this was a last chance being given to the plaintiff to produce evidence. 5. According to the impugned order instead of availing this last chance; again an adjournment was sought by the plaintiff on 30.7.2009 which was granted subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as costs. An undertaking of the plaintiff's counsel is recorded in the said order of the Court dated 30.7.2009, that evidence would be produced by the plaintiff on the next dale; and the Court's order also specifically mentions that no further adjournment will be granted. Despite all this, on the next date i.e. 10.8.2009, as usual an application for adjournment was filed on behalf of the plaintiff saying that the plaintiff's lawyer failed to contact the plaintiff on telephone and ten days time may be allowed for informing the plaintiff by registered post. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff at length. The first excuse advanced before me is that the Managing Director of the petitioner company had fallen ill, after the examination of the first witness and therefore, other evidence could not be produced. The excuse is frivolous. Annexure-I to the writ petition is the medical report, in purported corroboration of the averment of illness. This certificate is by some private clinic. The excuse is frivolous. Annexure-I to the writ petition is the medical report, in purported corroboration of the averment of illness. This certificate is by some private clinic. It mentions the age of the Managing Director, Shambhu Nath Singh as 53 years, who appears to have been treated only as an outdoor patient. Further the diagnosis or complaint is of (i) Fever (ii) vomiting (iii) pain in abdomen. The certificate is dated 18.7.2009. 7. Thus considering the age of the gentleman and the nature of the complaint the illness does not appear to be serious at all. Moreover, in a Company there are several other persons apart from, the Managing Director who can conveniently attend to the date in the Court. In fact on a practical level the Managing Director of a Company, which is suing the Government for about four crores, is hardly likely to attend dates in Subordinate Court personally. 8. The other argument from the petitioners side is the usual argument that if this Court allows one last chance to the petitioner-plaintiff, evidence would be adduced and no further adjournment would be sought. This kind of mercy arising out of misplaced sympathy towards totally unscrupulous litigants is one of the causes which dissuades Subordinate Courts from displeasing litigants and lawyers by passing strict orders, which are ultimately reversed by Superior Courts not because of the order being illegal, but for other sympathetic consideration. 9. As already stated above the last chance being sought again now was given by the Trial Court by an express order on 28.7.2009. Thereafter, another last chance was given by order dated 30.7.2009 upon an undertaking by the plaintiff's counsel with an express warning that no further adjournment would be granted. When the plaintiff did not pay heed to these warnings and did not avail of those last chances, it would be an injudicious exercise of the discretion of this Court in writ jurisdiction to aid such a litigant. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid strong emphasis during arguments on the alleged payment of costs awarded for the various adjournments. The argument does not impress, as the litigants should not be allowed to act under the misconception that just because they have the financial means to afford payment of petty costs ranging from As. 100/- to Rs. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid strong emphasis during arguments on the alleged payment of costs awarded for the various adjournments. The argument does not impress, as the litigants should not be allowed to act under the misconception that just because they have the financial means to afford payment of petty costs ranging from As. 100/- to Rs. 500/- therefore, they can keep the Court under their command and obtain adjournments by merely throwing money at the other side. 11. A strict stop has to be put some-time somewhere by the judiciary which is under an all round attack for delay in disposal. 12. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of my discretionary writ jurisdiction. 13. The writ petition is dismissed.