A.C. Upadhyay, J- Heard Mr. DK Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Mr. AK Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Paul, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, this revision petition has been taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself. 3. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 04.06.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kailashahar, in MS No.04 of 2009, whereby the learned Court below, while allowing the prayer for adjournment sought for by the defendants-petitioners, imposed a cost of Rs.5,000/- for adjournment, payable to the plaintiff-respondent. 4. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that the respondent herein as plaintiff filed a suit for damages, claiming Rs. 5,000/- from the defendants(herein the petitioners), alleging defamation for requiring information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 about his nationality. 5. The proceeding of the suit started with framing of issues but no date was fixed for submitting the list of witnesses. Date was fixed for evidence (for submission of examination-inchief), and on two successive dates, the plaintiff-respondent took adjournments. Subsequently, on 05.02.2011, the plaintiff/respondent submitted the examination-in-chief of PW. 1 and prayed for fixing another date for production of other witnesses. On the next date fixed i.e. on 17.03.2011, prayer was made by both the parties for adjournment, which was granted and next date was fixed on 04.04.2011 for filing of further examination -in-chief on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent. But on the next date also the plaintiff-resp­ondent was absent and as a result filing of further examination-in-chief did not come forth. 6. However, on 16.05.2011 the plaintiff-respondent appeared with his witnesses and submitted the examination-in chief of all the six witnesses. 7. Learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners, who was called up to cross-examine instantly after receiving the copies of the affidavits, declined to cross-examine in that haste, and as such, learned Court granted adjournment and next date was fixed on 04.06.2011 for cross-examination of the witnesses of the plaintiff-respondent 8. 7. Learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners, who was called up to cross-examine instantly after receiving the copies of the affidavits, declined to cross-examine in that haste, and as such, learned Court granted adjournment and next date was fixed on 04.06.2011 for cross-examination of the witnesses of the plaintiff-respondent 8. It has been submitted on behalf of the defendantspetitioners that learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners, as he was to take some treatment outside the station, submitted an application well ahead with a copy served on the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent and prayed for adjournment as he would not be able to be present on the next date fixed (04.06.2011). 9. However, on 04.06.2011, when the case was taken up, learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners was not present in the Court and accordingly, the impugned order was passed by the learned Court below, which reads as follows: "04.06.2011 Ld. counsel for plaintiff is present alongwith two witnesses out of which one is plaintiff. Ld. counsel for the defendants filed an adjournment petition dated 4.6.2011 on the ground stated herein. It is pertinent to mention here that on 4.6.2011, Ld. counsel for the defendants filed the present petition for adjournment was instructed verbally to inform the plaintiff or his Ld. counsel in well-advance about his adjournment petition so that plaintiffside would avoid unnecessary expenditure by producing witnesses. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff verbally submitted that he was informed only yesterday in the afternoon about the adjournment petition filed by the defendants. He has also submitted that one of the present witness has come from Delhi just to appear and depose in this case and for which he has incurred huge expenditure. He has also submitted that had the Ld. counsel for defendants informed him in well-ahead then the witness from Delhi would have not come by incurring huge expenditure like for Air ticket etc. The court has remembered that on the previous occasion both the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and defendants fixed two days date for cross examining the plaintiff's witnesses after consultation. - In view of the above facts and circumstances there is no doubt that Ld. counsel on behalf of the defendants has committed negligency for which the plaintiff has appeared alongwith witnesses by incurring huge expenditure. As such, I find no scope to adjourn the case as prayed on behalf of defendants. - In view of the above facts and circumstances there is no doubt that Ld. counsel on behalf of the defendants has committed negligency for which the plaintiff has appeared alongwith witnesses by incurring huge expenditure. As such, I find no scope to adjourn the case as prayed on behalf of defendants. However, for fair ends of justice, this Court in considered view that heavy and considerable adjournment cost should be imposed upon the defendants to meet out the minimum expenditure incurred by the plaintiff for producing his witnesses from Delhi. Therefore, the adjournment petition filed on behalf of defendants dated 4-6-2011 is hereby allowed with the adjournment cost of 5,000 payable to the plaintiff on the next date. Inform accordingly. The plaintiff side is directed to produce their witnesses on the next date for facing cross examination. Fix 15.06.2011 for P.H.(P.Ws)" 10. Learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners has submitted that the situation as available on 04.06.2011 does not call for any action imposing cost, since learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners informed the other side well ahead and the information was accepted without recording any objection. 11. Learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners further pointed out that Section 35-A(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not provide for imposing a cost for an adjournment, and, as such, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is perverse and beyond jurisdiction. 12. However, Order 17, Rule 1 of the CPC specifically provides the power of the Court to grant time and adjournment of hearing. In terms of the provisions of Order 17, Rule 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 suits. Order 17, Rule 1 Sub-Rule 2 provides for cost of adjournment, which specifically indicates that in 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. Order 17, Rule 1 Sub-Rule 2 provides for cost of adjournment, which specifically indicates that in 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. The provision contains in Order 17, Rule 1 Sub-rule 2 reads as follows: "(2) Costs 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 dayto 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 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 crossexamine 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.] 13. On careful perusal of the above rules, it transpires that 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. 14. Mr. AK Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, by referring to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 : Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. submitted that the powers of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been specified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows: "38. Such like matters frequently arise before the High Courts. Wesum up our conclusions in a nutshell, even at the risk of repetition and state the same as hereunder:- (1) Amendment by Act No.46 of 1999 with effect from 01.07.2002 in Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure cannot and does not affect in any manner the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. (2) Interlocutory orders, passed by the courts subordinate to the High Court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by the CPC Amendment Act No. 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in, and continue to be subject to, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. (3) Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e., when a subordinate court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction-by assuming jurisd­iction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction-by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice. (4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. (4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. (5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied: (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (iii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. (6) A patent error is an error which is self-evident, i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent. (7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the above said two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis. (8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. (9) In practice, the parameters for exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari and those calling for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction are almost similar and the width of jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in India unlike English courts has almost obliterated the distinction between the two jurisdictions. While exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari the High Court may annul or set aside the act, order or proceedings of the subordinate courts but cannot substitute its own decision in place thereof. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the High Court may not only give suitable directions so as to guide the subordinate court as to the manner in which it would act or proceed thereafter or afresh, the High Court may in appropriate cases itself make an order in supersession or substitution of the order of the subordinate court as the court should have made in the facts and circumstances of the case." 15. In the light of the above decision, reported in Surya Dev Rai (supra), this Court, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction, will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of the merit or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. 16. Mr. In the light of the above decision, reported in Surya Dev Rai (supra), this Court, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction, will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of the merit or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character. 16. Mr. AK Bhowmik, learned senior counsel also pointed out that on the date fixed for cross examination of the witnesses, some of the witnesses came all the way from Delhi by spending huge amount of money, therefore, it was essential on the Court, while granting adjournment, to grant a cost in terms of the provision of Order 17, Rule 1 Sub-rule 2 of the CPC and thus the order passed by the learned Court below is neither illegal nor irregular, nor the impugned order is beyond the jurisdiction as provided under the law, nor in violation of the provision of law. 17. On perusal of the order passed by the learned Court below it appears that on previous occasions also the learned Court below granted adjournment to the defendants-petitioners for cross examination of the witnesses, and subsequently, thereafter, as per the inconvenience of the parties as agreed to by both the parties, suitable dates were fixed for cross-examination of the witnesses. 18. On the other hand, the prayer for adjournment for cross examination of the witness made by the defendant/petitioner before the Trial Court on the ground of illness of the conducting counsel, apparently do not satisfy the requirement of the provision as provided under Order 17, Rule 1 Sub-rule 2(d) of the CPC. However, the learned court below granted adjournment with cost. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances, in view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, do not deserve to be interfered with in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 20. Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed. However, I pass no order as to costs.