ORDER : GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Instant civil misc. petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 21.06.2025 passed in Revocation Case No. 19/2024 by which the Civil Misc. Case No. 75/2011 has been restored to its original file which was earlier dismissed for default. 2. Civil Misc. Case No. 75/2011 was registered on the application jointly filed by opposite party no. 1- Bijay Chandra and one Smt. Kundan Devi (opposite party no. 8) under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 before the Court of learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. 3. The case was filed, inter alia, for the relief directing the opposite party nos. 1 to 5 to furnish all particulars about value, condition, management and application of the subject matter of the said Trust Alice Educational Trust (AET). Analogous prayers were made with regard to accounts and other affairs of the said Trust for being disclosed. 4. Civil Misc. Case No. 75/2011 was dismissed for default and the same was restored in Revocation Case No. 09/2019. 5. After said restoration, the order of restoration passed in Revocation Case No. 09/2019 was challenged before this Court which was disposed of with a direction to learned Trial Court to dispose of Civil Misc. Case No. 75/2011 within three months from the date of said order. After the said order, the said case was not disposed of within the stipulated time. 6. The said case was again dismissed for default on 04.09.2024 and the same was restored vide the impugned order dated 21.06.2025 in Revocation Case No. 19/2024 which is under challenge in the instant civil misc. petition. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that during pendency of the case before the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, opposite party no. 10 died in 2016 and he has not been substituted and, therefore, the said order of restoration has been passed against a dead person. 8. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that this is a case where the opposite parties have prosecuted the case in a most lax and casual manner, consequently Civil Misc. Case No. 75/2011 had been dismissed for default twice. 8. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that this is a case where the opposite parties have prosecuted the case in a most lax and casual manner, consequently Civil Misc. Case No. 75/2011 had been dismissed for default twice. There was a specific direction in C.M.P. No.1081 of 2022 to conclude the trial within three months, but the said order was not complied with and consequently, the case was dismissed again, which has been restored again. Granting adjournment without sufficient cause, is against the provision of Order XVII of the CPC and law settled by the Apex Court, that adjournment should not be granted without sufficient cause. Reliance in this regard is placed on Sunil Kumar v. State of Haryana , (2012) 5 SCC 398 wherein, it has been held 13. This Court in Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. K. Parasaran [ (1996) 5 SCC 530 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1038 : AIR 1996 SC 2687 ] observed as under : (SCC p. 537, para 11) “11. … No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived or frivolous petitions.” 9. Learned counsel on behalf of the opposite party, seeks adjournment for a month to conclude the hearing in the matter before the trial Court. 10. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, for better appreciation the following list of date is set out: - 13.05.2011 Civil Misc. Case No.75/2011 filed by the opposite party nos.1 & 8 in the present C.M.P. against the present petitioner for a direction to furnish to the petitioner through Court all particulars about the management of the said Trust ‘Alice Educational Trust’ (AET). 21.01.2017 Civil Misc. Case No.75/2011 was dismissed for non-prosecution by the learned trial Court for the reason that several adjournments were given, but the petitioner only used to file Hazri and no one appeared before the Court when the case was called out to make any submission despite giving specific directions to appear and argue the case on several dates. 26.09.2022 Civil Misc. Case No.75/2011 was restored by the trial Court in Revocation Case No.09/2019. 26.09.2022 Civil Misc. Case No.75/2011 was restored by the trial Court in Revocation Case No.09/2019. 11.12.2023 The Petitioner preferred C.M.P. No.1081 of 2022 against the restoration, which was disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to decide the matter within three months from the date of the said order. 30.08.2024 Adjournment to the opposite party nos.1 & 8 in the present C.M.P. were allowed at a cost of Rs.2000/- in the Civil Misc Case No.75/2011. 04.09.2024 The learned trial Court dismissed the case for default on the ground that neither cost was deposited nor steps were taken on behalf of the opposite party nos.1 & 8 in the present C.M.P. 11. The chronology of dates above reflects a glaring laxity in prosecuting the matter. It is evident that more than thirteen years have elapsed since its institution, despite the jurisdiction of this Court being primarily advisory in nature. Yet, the matter remains inconclusive owing to the laches of the opposite parties. The case was last dismissed for default on 04.09.2024—this being the second such dismissal—and has since been restored. The proceedings continue to linger even though, on the earlier occasion, restoration was granted on 11.12.2023 subject to the clear stipulation that the matter be concluded within three months. Despite repeated adjournments, this timeline has not been adhered to. 12. Delay remains the bane of civil adjudication, and a principal cause thereof is the non-rigorous application of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), particularly in relation to adjournments. A litigant who pursues a lis in a lax or leisurely manner does so at his own peril. Under Order XVII of the CPC, adjournments may only be granted upon showing sufficient cause, and at any stage of the suit, should a party fail to appear on the date fixed, the Court is empowered to proceed in accordance with Order IX CPC. 13. It will be relevant to note the observation of the Apex Court in this regard in M/s Shiv Cotex Vs. Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. & Others (2011) 9 SCC 678 , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: - “16. No litigant has a right to abuse the procedure provided in the CPC. Adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system. Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. & Others (2011) 9 SCC 678 , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: - “16. No litigant has a right to abuse the procedure provided in the CPC. Adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system. It is true that cap on adjournments to a party during the hearing of the suit provided in proviso to Order XVII Rule 1 CPC is not mandatory and in a suitable case, on justifiable cause, the court may grant more than three adjournments to a party for its evidence but ordinarily the cap provided in the proviso to Order XVII Rule 1 CPC should be maintained. When we say `justifiable cause' what we mean to say is, a cause which is not only `sufficient cause' as contemplated in sub-rule (1) of Order XVII CPC but a 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 like sudden illness of the litigant or the witness or the lawyer; death in the family of any one of them; natural calamity like floods, earthquake, etc. in the area where any of these persons reside; an accident involving the litigant or the witness or the lawyer on way to the court and such like cause.” 14. In the above stated position of fact and law, order impugned is not sustainable, and is accordingly set aside. Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.