N. Chaudhury, J.—Heard Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent although the names of learned counsel have been mentioned in the Cause list. By filing this appeal u/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, petitioner has challenged the decree dated 11.06.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Dhemaji in Money Suit No. 2/2004. 2. The aforesaid suit was initiated on presentation of a plaint on 01.09.2003 by one Mukhya Buragohain pleading that the defendant is one of his nephews who is an Assistant Teacher by occupation. According to the plaintiff, defendant took a loan of Rs. 1,40,000/- from the plaintiff for repairing of his vehicle and executed a deed on 27.09.2001 with promise to repay the same in 47 instalments of Rs. 3,000/- each. The said document was annexed as Annexure-1 of the plaint. On the same date, defendant also executed another deed authorising the plaintiff to receive the monthly instalments of Rs. 3,000/- from his monthly salary. The authority letter was annexed as Annexure-2 of the plaint whereas the agreement for refund of money @ Rs. 3,000/- per month was annexed as Annexure-1. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant subsequently did not pay the installments, did not refund the money and rather sold the truck to someone. Under such circumstances and on refusal of the defendant to refund the money, filing of this suit became necessary, praying for realisation of Rs. 1,72,000/- including interest calculated upto 27.08.2003 on aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- and also for future interest etc. The defendant on being summoned appeared and submitted written statement. The defendant specifically denied the case of the plaintiff in regard to payment of money. The defendant denied to have taken any loan from the plaintiff and as such refuted the prayer of the plaintiff for a decree. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid contention, the learned trial Court framed as many as 3 issues and they are as follows: 1. Whether there is a cause of action for a suit? 2. Whether a defendant had taken a loan of Rs. 1,40,000/- from the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff is entitled to the said amount with interest? 3. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to? 4. Whether there is a cause of action for a suit? 2. Whether a defendant had taken a loan of Rs. 1,40,000/- from the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff is entitled to the said amount with interest? 3. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to? 4. Plaintiff submitted examination-in-chief for two witnesses including himself and proved as many as 8 documents including the aforesaid agreement and the authority letter. Plaintiff produced the agreement in original to show that the defendant wrote the document in his own hand and signed it, acknowledging receipt of Rs. 1,40,000/- from the plaintiff and indicating to make repayment in 47 installments of Rs. 3,000/- each. This is Ext.-1. Ext.-2 is the authority letter whereby defendant authorised the plaintiff to collect Rs. 3,000/- every month from the salary of the petitioner directly from the Head Teacher of the School where the defendant is a teacher. The signature of the defendant has been proved as Ext.-2(1). 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Kalita has drawn my attention to the order sheet of this case. The order sheet shows that on 23.04.2004, plaintiff submitted examination-in-chief of two witnesses in the form of affidavit under the provision of Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC. Thereupon 21.05.2004 was fixed for cross-examination of both the witnesses. Order sheet further shows that on 21.05.2004 defendant filed application No. 602/2004 and prayed for time so as to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff. The prayer was allowed by the learned trial Court at a cost of Rs. 200/- and next date was fixed on 11.06.2004 for cross-examination. On 11.06.2004, defendant submitted another application being No. 698/2004 praying for adjournment on the ground that he would engage another Advocate in the case. The learned trial Court did not find favour with the said application and passed an order holding that the said petition was filed with no other purpose than to delay the proceeding. The learned trial Court further held that the amended CPC is very harsh to adjournment and the petition for adjournment lacks sufficient ground. With this observation the prayer for adjournment was rejected and a judgment was passed on the same date decreeing the suit for an amount of Rs. 1,72,000/- with cost and further interest @ 12% p.a. from 28.08.2003 till realisation. 6. I have gone through the examination-in-chief and the pleadings of the parties. With this observation the prayer for adjournment was rejected and a judgment was passed on the same date decreeing the suit for an amount of Rs. 1,72,000/- with cost and further interest @ 12% p.a. from 28.08.2003 till realisation. 6. I have gone through the examination-in-chief and the pleadings of the parties. It is the specific case of the defendant that he did not take any loan from the plaintiff and that there was no question of his taking loan because he had enough of money apart from other properties. In the written statement it has also been disclosed that the plaintiff had enmity with the defendant and sought to assault him for which he had to file a criminal case being GR Case No. 175/2003 against the plaintiff. According to the defendant the allegation of extending loan and or execution of agreement or authority are all incorrect. Since the claim of the plaintiff in regard to money is based on document, the whole suit depends upon credibility of Ext.-1 & 2. I have perused Ext.-1. It appears that signature of the defendant over Ext.-1 has not been proved by the plaintiff. Drawing my attention to the case of the defendant as to total denial in regard to execution of any document Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned counsel submitted that the defendant was not guilty of taking repeated adjournments. The plaintiff had submitted the affidavits on 23.04.2004 and it was fixed for cross-examination on 21.05.2004. On 21.05.2004 the learned Court was satisfied that there was ground for adjourning the case and accordingly it was adjourned to 11.06.2004. On that day also the defendant filed another application for adjournment. According to the learned counsel Mr. Kalita, he was entitled to maximum of 3 adjournments after hearing started. In the case in hand, examination-in-chief was submitted on 23.01.2004 and on the second date the learned Court refused adjournment which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner has occasioned serious prejudice to the defendant. Order XVII Rule 1 with a proviso thereto has been incorporated in the CPC vide Section 26 of CPC Amendment (Act) 46 of 1999 w.e.f. 01.07.2002. Order XVII Rule 1 with a proviso thereto has been incorporated in the CPC vide Section 26 of CPC Amendment (Act) 46 of 1999 w.e.f. 01.07.2002. In Rule 1 of Order XVII power has been given to the Court to grant adjournment from time to time for reasons to be recorded in writing yet a rider has been added by proviso thereto and the said proviso is quoted at below: Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the suits. 7. It is needless to say that incorporation of this proviso has become necessary in view of mindless adjournments granted in civil litigation on this and that ground to the parties and in the process, delay in disposal of suits occurs for which judiciary itself is projected in a poor light before the society. The prayer for adjournment of a party, therefore, so far as proviso to the Order XVII Rule 1 is concerned has to be understood on the basis of such backyard. No straightjacket formula can be laid down for mechanical compliance of this rule and each case has to be decided on its own merit. If on a given date a party succeeds to make out sufficient cause warranting adjournment, there is no bar under the CPC, to the Court for granting such adjournment. After all it is the established rule of interpretation that a proviso cannot control the main provision. If an adjournment is granted on a date it is to be understood that the learned Court was satisfied as to genuineness for the reason. Granting of adjournment on previous occasion or occasions cannot, therefore, be a ground for deciding the validity of a ground for adjournment on a given later date. The professed ground(s) for getting adjournment on a given date has to be adjudged on the merit of that ground only and not on the basis that previously adjournments were granted to the party. Coming to the present case it appears that after the case became ready for cross-examination, the defendant sought and obtained adjournment only on date only, namely, on 21.05.2004. Under such circumstances, it does not appear to be fair to hold that the application was filed only to cause delay. Moreover the ground taken in adjournment of application shows that the defendant wanted to engage a new Advocate of his choice. Under such circumstances, it does not appear to be fair to hold that the application was filed only to cause delay. Moreover the ground taken in adjournment of application shows that the defendant wanted to engage a new Advocate of his choice. Engagement of an Advocate by a client is also a matter of trust and as such if for some or other reasons a litigant wants to change his existing lawyer or set of lawyers, there may not be wrong in it. It is not the case of the party that on this ground adjournment was granted on earlier occasions and that even thereafter the defendant did not change his Lawyer. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not feel that rejection of the prayer for adjournment on 11.06.2004 was just and fair. After all, in the adversarial system of litigation it is always advisable that the parties should be given adequate and full opportunities to place their respective cases so that the Court can get to the bottom of the case in its quest for discerning the truth. 8. In the case in hand, question arises as to whether the document particularly Ext-1 and 2 were really executed by the defendant. On the face of averments made in the written statement, had the defendant been given another scope for the purpose of cross-examining the two witnesses of the plaintiff there would have been no difficulty at all. More particularly because proviso to Order XVII Rule 1 even if taken to its letter then also a party is entitled to three adjournments during the whole course of hearing of the suit. Mentioning of the words 'three times' to a party during hearing of the suits is clear enough to understand that such adjournment is not for the whole course of the suit but only after the suit enters into the hearing stage. Considering the facts and circumstances, I feel that the defendant should have been permitted atleast one date for cross-examining the witnesses of the plaintiff. Section 105 of the CPC provides that any error, defect or irregularity in any order affecting the decision of a case may be set forth as a ground of objection in the Memorandum of Appeal. Considering the facts and circumstances, I feel that the defendant should have been permitted atleast one date for cross-examining the witnesses of the plaintiff. Section 105 of the CPC provides that any error, defect or irregularity in any order affecting the decision of a case may be set forth as a ground of objection in the Memorandum of Appeal. Obviously license to cite such reason as a ground of objection in the Memorandum of Appeal also means that once such error, defect or irregularity is established, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 9. Finding this, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and accordingly this appeal is allowed. 10. The impugned judgment and decree is hereby set aside. The learned trial Court shall afford one opportunity to the defendant to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff. Considering the fact that the case has been pending since 2003, parties are directed to appear before the learned Civil Judge, Dhemaji on 01.04.2014 whereafter a date shall be fixed for cross-examination of the PWs and on that day, the dependants shall be at liberty to cross-examine. No further time shall be granted to the defendant for such cross-examination. Send down the case records immediately.