JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent. 2. On 21.1.2015, a petition being Petition No. 427/2014 under section 151, CPC was filed on behalf of the defendants to allow the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and to adduce defendants' evidence. This petition was rejected by the order dated 26.6.2015 holding as follows: “In the present suit the plaintiff filed evidence-in-affidavit of the PWs on 23.6.2011. However the defendants took several adjournments for cross-examination of the PWs, and as such, on 14.3.2012 my learned predecessor rejected petition bearing No. 682/12 filed by the defendants seeking further adjournment, and ordered that the cross-examination of the PWs stands declined and fixed next date for submission of DW evidence. The defendants again took several adjournments for submission of evidence-in-affidavit of the DWs, and as such, this court dosed the evidence of defendants and fixed 5.11.2014 for arguments. Thus, it is seen that in spite of repeated opportunities the defendants neither cross-examined the plaintiff's witnesses nor submitted their evidence due to which this court was forced to fix the present suit for arguments almost about three years after the PW evidence was submitted. Law helps those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over the matter. In the present suit PW evidence was submitted 23.6.2011. However, the defendants neither cross-examined the PWs nor submitted their evidence although several opportunities were provided to them for a period of over 3 years. As such, the contention of the defendants that they hail from village, and as such, are not aware of the technicalities and procedure of the court of law or that the defendants were completely dependent on their engaged counsel for pursuing the matter and that the adverse orders passed against the defendants were passed without any fault on his part and due to the negligence of their previous advocate is according to my considered view does not hold ground so as to allow the defendants to cross-examine the PWs or to allow them to adduce their evidence particularly when the present suit is an old pending one. The petition is, therefore, rejected.” 3. This application is filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the aforesaid order dated 26.6.2015. 4. Mr. The petition is, therefore, rejected.” 3. This application is filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the aforesaid order dated 26.6.2015. 4. Mr. Gangully has submitted that the cross-examination of the witnesses of the plaintiff was closed not on account of any laches or negligence on the part of the defendants but for the reason that the learned counsel for the defendants had gone on taking time on his personal ground and, therefore, an opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioners to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff. He has submitted that, consequently, after such cross-examination is over, opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioners to adduce evidence on their behalf. 5. Mr. Sahu, on the other hand, has submitted that as would be evident from the petition filed by the learned counsel for the defendants seeking withdrawal from the case that there was no communication from the side of the defendants despite requests made by the learned counsel for the defendants resulting in a situation where he had to make a prayer for withdrawal from the case. After the new counsel was engaged, the defendants did not either make a prayer for recalling the order whereby the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses was closed or challenged the said order in a higher forum demonstrating that the defendants were not aggrieved by the said order. Over a long period of time, the defendants sought adjournments to enable them to file evidence on affidavit, which they did not do, which ultimately resulted in closure of their evidence. When the case was fixed for argument, they sought adjournment to advance argument and thereafter, the petition under section 151, CPC was filed with the sole objective of prolonging the proceedings and it is in such circumstances, the learned trial court rightly rejected the petition, he submits. 6. Learned counsel for the parties have made available copies of relevant petitions filed and the order-sheet of the learned trial court for the perusal of the court. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record as well as the petitions and orders produced before the court by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record as well as the petitions and orders produced before the court by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The respondent as plaintiff filed a suit being Title Suit No. 69/2009 against the present petitioners and 4 others for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of Schedule-A, measuring 2 bighas, 4 lechas of land, recovery of possession by evicting the defendant No. 1, his men, agents and associates therefrom, declaration that the registered Sale Deed being No. 1005/2009, more particularly described in Schedule-D, and the registered Sale Deed bearing No. 1299/2009, more particularly described in Schedule-E of the plaint, as null and void, permanent injunction, etc. It is pleaded that Schedule-B and Schedule-C are two equal parts of Schedule-A. The plaintiff claimed to have purchased the aforesaid Schedule-A land from its owner, i.e. the defendant No. 7, Nazrul Islam, by a registered Sale Deed No. 115/1988. Nazrul Islam is arrayed as petitioner No. 3 in this petition. It is averred that the defendant No. 1 claimed to have purchased Schedule-B land by registered Sale Deed being No. 1005/2009 dated 18.5.2009 from the petitioner No. 2 herein and the Schedule-C land from the defendant Nos. 3 to vide Sale Deed No. 1299/2009 dated 30.6.2009. 9. Significantly, 4 defendants in the suit are not impleaded in this petition. 10. The petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2 are arrayed as defendant Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, in the suit. The defendant Nos. 2, 6 and 7 are brothers and defendant No. 5 is wife of one of the deceased brothers of defendant Nos. 2, 6 and 7. The defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are nephews of defendant Nos. 2, 6 and 7. 11. A joint written statement was filed by the defendants. In the said written statement, amongst others, it is stated that the plaintiff cannot claim ownership over the Schedule-A land on the strength of the registered Sale Deed No. 115/1988 as defendant No. 7 had sold his whole share of land to the defendant No. 1 vide registered sale deed No. 560/1986 dated 4.4.1986. 12. On 23.6.2011, the plaintiff filed evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. 12. On 23.6.2011, the plaintiff filed evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. On 19.7.2011, 28.9.2011, 21.11.2011 and 14.3.2012, petitions were filed to adjourn cross-examination of the witnesses of the plaintiff on personal ground of the learned counsel appearing for the defendants. Though on the earlier three occasions, prayer was allowed, by an order passed on 14.3.2012, the petition was rejected and cross-examination of PWs was closed. It appears that by the said order, 12.4.2012 was fixed for filing of affidavit by the defendants. The learned counsel for the defendants filed a petition on that day being Petition No. 1042/2012 praying for time to submit evidence on affidavit of the defendants on the ground that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, whose evidence is required to be adduced, were lying ill. On 23.5.2012, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants filed a petition seeking further time to submit evidence on affidavit of defendants as the defendants had failed to contact the counsel as a result of which the evidence could not be prepared and filed. Petition being Petition No. 2623/2012 was filed on 18.7.2012 seeking further time on the ground that the defendant No. 1 was lying in bed-ridden condition. Another petition was filed on 1.4.2013 praying for further time as evidence on affidavit could not be filed on the ground that the defendants had gone to Khairabari to attend to their nephew's marriage ceremony. One more petition was filed on 29.4.2013 praying for further time on the ground of illness of the defendants. Thus, from 12.4.2012 to 29.4.2013, the defendants were praying for time to file their evidence. 13. On 7.6.2013, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants had filed a petition being Petition No. 3145/2013. The relevant extract of the petition is reproduced herein below: “It is submitted most respectfully by the advocate on behalf of the defendants as under:- That to-day date is fixed for evidence on affidavit by the defendant side witness. But as several informations to the defendants they are not willing to meet their advocate since six months. For the above reason, I intend to withdraw my name from the Wakalatnama, because I am not willing to conduct the above case.” 14. It appears that after the aforesaid petition was filed, the learned trial court directed issuance of notice to the defendants by an order dated 2.7.2013. For the above reason, I intend to withdraw my name from the Wakalatnama, because I am not willing to conduct the above case.” 14. It appears that after the aforesaid petition was filed, the learned trial court directed issuance of notice to the defendants by an order dated 2.7.2013. The notice, however, inadvertently, initially came to be issued only to the defendant No. 1, who appeared on 26.8.2013 and prayed for time to engage a new counsel. Order dated 12.9.2013, however, goes to show that the counsel for the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7, prayed for another date as he was newly engaged and accordingly, the case was fixed on 7.10.2013 for evidence of the defendants' witnesses. By the said order dated 12.9.2013, as none had appeared on behalf of the defendant No. 4 and defendant Nos. 6(i) to 6(iii), the substituted legal heirs of the original defendant No. 6, who had died in the meantime, the suit was directed to proceed ex parte against them. However, later on, by an order dated 7.10.2013, notices were directed to be issued on the defendant Nos. 6(i), 6(ii) and 6(iii), as notice had been issued in the name of the deceased defendant No. 6. 15. Order dated 7.6.2014 goes to show that on that date, the defendant Nos. 6(i), 6(ii) and 6(iii) had entered appearance. On 4.8.2014, the court passed an order fixing 25.8.2014 for evidence of defendants' witnesses. On 25.8.2014, prayer made by the substituted defendants for filing written statement was rejected as the written statement had already been filed. On 22.9.2014, the defendants were absent without step and the case was fixed on 29.9.2014 for necessary order. On 29.9.2014, though the defendants were represented, neither the defendants' evidence was filed nor time was prayed for to file the evidence. Accordingly, evidence of DWs was closed and 5.11.2014 was fixed for argument. 16. On 5.11.2014, the defendants filed a petition praying for time to engage a new counsel and while allowing the same, the case was fixed on 3.12.2014 for argument. On 3.12.2014, a petition was filed by the plaintiff for fixing another date for argument. The order dated 3.12.2014 goes to show that the defendants also prayed for fixing another date for argument. Accordingly, 21.1.2015 was fixed for argument. 17. Mr. On 3.12.2014, a petition was filed by the plaintiff for fixing another date for argument. The order dated 3.12.2014 goes to show that the defendants also prayed for fixing another date for argument. Accordingly, 21.1.2015 was fixed for argument. 17. Mr. Ganguly may be justified in saying that for the closure of cross-examination of evidence of PWs vide order dated 14.3.2012, the defendants may not have been faulted with but that is not the end of the matter. Once the defendants came to know that the cross-examination of PWs had been closed, they did not raise any issue with the same and rather had sought for time for long period from 12.4.2012 to 29.4.2013 to file their evidence. Even after engagement of a new counsel on 12.9.2013, they filed petition after petition seeking time to file evidence of defendants' witnesses. Eventually, they did not file their evidence also, which led the court to pass an order fixing the case for argument. 18. The trial court had given more than sufficient opportunities to the defendants. Delays in justice delivery system dent the efficacy of judicial process and there ought not to be misplaced sympathy and indulgence in the matter of grant of adjournment. The cap on adjournments to a party during the hearing of the suit if provided in proviso to order XVII, rule 1, CPC is not mandatory and in an appropriate case, when the cause which makes the request for adjournment by a party during the hearing of the suit beyond three adjournments unavoidable and sort of a compelling necessity, the court can certainly grant more than three adjournments to a party for its evidence. 19. However, in the fact situation, as is disclosed, it is the defendants, who are to blame themselves. Having regard to the materials on record, which eloquently testify that the defendants had abused the process of the court, this court is unable to persuade itself that this is a fit case for interfering with the impugned order under article 227 of the Constitution of India. Taking that view, this petition is dismissed. No costs.