Order 17 Rule 1 CPC
Order 17 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 (India) deals with adjournments in civil suits. It sets limits on how and when a court can grant adjournments during the course of a trial. This provision is vital to prevent unnecessary delays in the justice delivery system.
📘 TEXT OF ORDER 17 RULE 1, CPC
Order XVII Rule 1 – Adjournments
(1) The Court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit.
Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during the hearing of the suit.
(2) Costs of adjournment shall be awarded, and where the hearing of the suit has commenced, no party shall be allowed to recall any witness without adequate reason and the court's permission.
✅ Key Elements of Order 17 Rule 1
Discretion of the Court
The court has the discretion to grant adjournments, but it must be exercised judiciously, not arbitrarily.
There must be "sufficient cause" shown by the party seeking adjournment.
Limit on Number of Adjournments
A party is entitled to a maximum of three adjournments during the hearing of the suit.
This provision was added through the 2002 Amendment to curb unnecessary delays.
Costs of Adjournment
Adjournments are not to be granted freely. If granted, the court must impose costs on the party seeking adjournment unless justified.
This is to discourage frivolous requests for delays.
Recalling Witnesses
Once the trial has commenced, recalling a witness is not allowed unless there is a valid and sufficient reason and prior permission of the court.
⚖️ Important Case Laws Interpreting Order 17 Rule 1
1. K. K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275
Facts: The plaintiff sought to recall a witness after the trial had commenced.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that recalling a witness after commencement is not barred under CPC, but it should not be misused. Courts must consider whether the recall is essential to render justice.
Principle: The court has the power to recall witnesses under Section 151 CPC (inherent powers) if it serves the ends of justice.
2. State of UP v. Shambhu Nath Singh, (2001) 4 SCC 667
Held: The Supreme Court emphasized that adjournments should not be granted mechanically. Courts must be strict and should not allow adjournments unless absolutely necessary.
3. Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344
Held: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 2002 amendment limiting adjournments to three. However, the Court clarified that this is not an absolute bar — courts can grant further adjournments in exceptional circumstances with proper justification.
4. Rani Kusum v. Kanchan Devi, (2005) 6 SCC 705
Held: The limitation on adjournments under Order 17 Rule 1 is directory and not mandatory. It means that courts should strive to follow it strictly, but in rare situations, they may grant more than three adjournments for justified reasons.
⚠️ Practical Implications
Courts are becoming increasingly reluctant to grant adjournments unless absolutely necessary.
Advocates must now come prepared; repeated absence or lack of preparation can result in closure of evidence, dismissal of the suit, or adverse costs.
Adjournments can no longer be a routine practice or used to harass the opposite party.
📝 Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Maximum Adjournments | 3 (during the hearing stage) |
| Discretion of Court | Yes, with sufficient cause |
| Recall of Witness | Only with adequate reason + court’s permission |
| Costs | Mandatory, unless justified |
| Nature of Rule | Directory (not strictly mandatory) |
RELATED Blog
0 comments