ORDER : G. Shyam Prasad, J. 1. This civil revision petition is filed seeking a direction to the Trial Court to expedite the disposal of OS No. 27 of 2016 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Court, Kadapa at Rajampet. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioners and the learned Counsel for respondents. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned III Additional District Court, Kadapa at Rajampet has been adjourning the suit on the sole ground that the respondents/plaintiffs are not getting ready for trial. The suit has been adjourned on several occasions i.e., on 8.7.2019, 29.7.2019, 17.9.2019 and 1.10.2019. The Trial Court has also imposed costs against the respondents for not proceeding with the trial. At last, on 21.10.2019, plaintiff has filed his chief-affidavit and the matter was posted to 28.10.2019 for cross-examination. On 28.10.2019, PW 1 was absent and again the matter was posed to 13.11.2019, therefore, the petitioners have filed the present revision petition to expedite the disposal of the suit in OS No. 27 of 2016 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Court, Kadapa at Rajampet. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Trial Court is granting adjournments without there being any reason shown by the plaintiff. On another occasion, PW 1 filed his chief-affidavit but the defendants reported not ready. Even for granting adjournment to defendants also no cause shown. Thereafter, PW 1 was absent for several adjournments and costs were imposed. The docket orders do not show any sufficient reason for granting adjournments for the absence of PW 1. The docket orders simply showing that PW 1 was absent, hence adjourned. 5. This Court is of the opinion that due to grant of unnecessary adjournments without there being any sufficient cause shown, as per the procedure prescribed under Order XVII Rules 1 to 3 CPC, the trial in original suits are getting delayed. The very grant of adjournment is without jurisdiction as it is against the above provisions. 6. A look at the provisions under Order XVII CPC reveals about adjournments of the hearing during trial. As a general rule, once a Court starts hearing of a suit, the hearing will continue "from day-to-day" till the final disposal of the suit. Order XVII, however, confers discretionary power on the Court to grant adjournments on sufficient cause being shown. 6. A look at the provisions under Order XVII CPC reveals about adjournments of the hearing during trial. As a general rule, once a Court starts hearing of a suit, the hearing will continue "from day-to-day" till the final disposal of the suit. Order XVII, however, confers discretionary power on the Court to grant adjournments on sufficient cause being shown. But it restricts number of adjournments at the instance of a party to the suit. It also provides for payment of costs occasioned by such adjournments. Order XVII Rule 2 CPC lays down procedure for granting adjournments and it reads as under: "2. Procedure if parties fail to appear on day fixed: Where, on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the parties or any of them fail to appear, the Court may proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed in that behalf by Order IX or make such other order as it thinks fit. [Explanation : Where the evidence or a substantial portion of the evidence of any party has already been recorded and such party fails to appear on any day to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned, the Court may, in its discretion, proceed with the case as if such party were present.] 7. In Salem Advocate Bar Assn. v. Union of India (Salem Advocate Bar Assn. I), (2003) 1 SCC 49 : AIR 2003 SC 189 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that none of the amendments introduced in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Amendment Acts of 1999 or 2002 is ultra vires the Constitution. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 confers discretionary power on the Court to adjourn the hearing of the suit by recording reasons in writing if sufficient cause is shown for such adjournment. Proviso to sub-rule (1) however, declares that maximum three adjournments can be granted at the instance of a party during the hearing of the suit. Sub-rule (2) enables the Court to make an order as to costs, actual or higher, as it deems fit. Proviso to sub-rule (2) imposes certain more restrictions on the Court in exercising the discretion in granting adjournments. 8. A party to the suit, however, may ask for an adjournment of the matter. Normally, to grant or refuse adjournment is at the discretion of the Court. Proviso to sub-rule (2) imposes certain more restrictions on the Court in exercising the discretion in granting adjournments. 8. A party to the suit, however, may ask for an adjournment of the matter. Normally, to grant or refuse adjournment is at the discretion of the Court. The power to grant adjournment is not subject to any definite rules, but it should be exercised judicially and reasonably and after considering the facts and circumstances of each case. Though the Code of Civil Procedure uses the expression "sufficient case" at several places, it has not been defined anywhere. It is an elastic expression for which no hard and fast guidelines can be prescribed. The term is very wide, sufficiently comprehensive and requires to be construed liberally in the larger interest of justice. The said preposition is laid down in UCO Bank v. Iyengar Consultancy Services, (1994) 2 SCC (Supp.) 399. 9. In Magan Lal v. Chabi Lal, AIR 1996 (Raj.) 103 , it was held that sometimes, an adjournment to a party is granted by the Court stating specifically and expressly that it would be the "last adjournment" and on the adjourned day, he would proceed with the case. Such action cannot ex facie be termed illegal or unlawful. On the adjourned day, therefore, the Court may insist the party to proceed with the matter and on failure by the party, it may pass an appropriate order. 10. In State Bank of India v. Chandra Govindji, (2000) 8 SCC 532 , it was held that the Court has to apply its mind, consider the facts and circumstances and take a decision. Whether an adjournment should or should not be granted would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. A prayer of adjournment cannot be refused on the sole ground that the adjournment was granted "as a last chance" or several adjournments had been granted in the past. 11. In Chander Sing v. Chottulal, AIR 1994 Raj. 186 , it was held that the payment of costs may be a condition precedent to the adjournment or a condition subsequent. When payment of costs has been made a condition precedent, it must be paid within the period fixed by the Court. If the costs are not paid, the applicant would be relegated to the position in which he would have been had the adjournment been refused. When payment of costs has been made a condition precedent, it must be paid within the period fixed by the Court. If the costs are not paid, the applicant would be relegated to the position in which he would have been had the adjournment been refused. If a default clause is provided, such as, the suit or appeal will stand dismissed, or the defence of the party will be struck off, or the suit will be proceeded ex parte, the consequences will ensure and such action cannot be held bad. 12. Since, the petitioners/defendants have come up for expeditious disposal of the suit, the Trial Court is hereby directed to dispose of the suit in OS No. 26 of 2016 expeditiously, by exercising the provisions under Order XVII Rules 1 to 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 13. In view of the foregoing reasons, the Registry is directed to give appropriate direction to all the subordinate Courts to follow scrupulously the Order XVII Rules 1 to 3 CPC strictly to avoid granting unnecessary adjournments without any sufficient reason and also imposing costs several times without taking further steps in the matter by following Order XVII Rules 1 to 3 CPC. It is needless to say that the Trial Courts have to strictly follow the procedure under Order XVII Rules 1 to 3 CPC while granting adjournments. 14. With the above observations, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. 15. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.