JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a very short prayer that the trial court may be directed to decide the suit as early as possible as the same has been pending in the court since 2006. 3. Learned counsel took me through the order sheets recorded by the trial court and canvassed that the evidence of plaintiff was closed on 22nd May, 2010 and thereafter the case has been pending for recording the evidence of respondents-defendants. The defendants did not appear nor tendered any evidence on 8th July and 24th July, 2010. The defendant-respondent filed an affidavit on 10th August, 2010 and was subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff on 15th March, 2011. His cross-examination could not be completed on that day and the case was adjourned numerous time and finally to 2nd April, 2011, but in between, the defendant did not appear in the court and every time the adjournment was being sought by the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants. The defendant for one or the other reason has been procrastinating the trial of the suit, hence in the interest of justice the trial court may be directed to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial of the suit as early as possible. 4. Looking to the nature of prayer, I do not feel inclined to issue notice to the respondents and the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner can be dealt with even in the absence of the respondents-defendants. 5. Having reflected over the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and carefully scanned the order-sheets recorded by the trial court, it is noticed that the trial court has been very liberal in granting adjournments for recording the evidence of the defendants. 6. In the case of M/s. Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. & Others reported in 2011 AIR SCW 5789 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has deprecated the practice of subordinate courts in granting adjournments liberally for recording the evidence of the parties. 6. In the case of M/s. Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. & Others reported in 2011 AIR SCW 5789 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has deprecated the practice of subordinate courts in granting adjournments liberally for recording the evidence of the parties. Albeit there is a cap of three adjournments to be granted to a party under the proviso of Rule 1 Order 17 CPC, yet after three adjournments, further adjournment can be granted only when an exceptional cause is shown to the court in this regard by the party. 7. In the instant case, not only three, but numberless adjournments are found to have been granted by the trial court very liberally sans showing any respect to the proviso of Rule 1 Order 17 of Civil Procedure Code in this regard. Hence, the trial court is directed to grant adjournment in the light of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Shiv Cotex (supra) and after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties, decide the suit as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 8. Writ petition stands disposed of with the afore-stated directions. 9. Consequent upon the disposal of writ petition, the stay application, filed herewith, does not survive and the same also stands disposed of.Petition Disposed of. *******