Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order refusing an adjournment. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. A perusal of the impugned order dated 28.03.2012 shows that the Court below has refused to adjourn the case on the reason that the petitioner is trying to drag on the proceedings. Whether the petitioner is trying to drag on the proceedings or not, the fact remains that such refusal to grant adjournment was made by the Court below as early as on 28.03.2012. Now today the Civil Revision Petition is brought for admission challenging that order nearly after 1 year and 4 months. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not in a position to say what transpiredthereafter. Needless to say that granting of an adjournment is a matter of discretion of the Court and not as a matter of right of the parties. When a Court has refused to grant adjournment such order, in the absence of establishing any perversity, cannot be interfered with especially when it is an order passed by exercising discretion. Accordingly, I find no merits in this Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. With these observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.