Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
Order XVII CPC: Adjournments and the Three-Adjournment Rule
Adjournments are the currency of delay. Order XVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regulates them: it permits the court to grant time where sufficient cause is shown, caps the adjournments any party may obtain during the hearing of a suit at three, requires costs to be imposed, and prescribes what happens when the adjourned date arrives and a party is absent or unready. These notes cover the whole Order, including the much-examined distinction between Rule 2 and Rule 3.
Order XVII and Order XV-A: two approaches to controlling the pace of a trial
1. The Power to Adjourn: Rule 1
§ Order XVII Rule 1, CPC 1908 (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 for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the suit. (2) In every such case the Court shall fix a day for the further hearing of the suit, and shall make such orders as to costs occasioned by the adjournment or such higher costs as the Court deems fit: Provided that when the hearing of the suit has commenced, it shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds that, for exceptional reasons to be recorded by it, the adjournment of the hearing beyond the following day is necessary... Explanation. Where the failure to produce evidence or to cause the attendance of witnesses is the fault of the pleader, the pleader's engagement in another Court shall not be a ground for adjournment. |
Sufficient cause and recorded reasons
Two conditions govern every adjournment. There must be sufficient cause, which is a judicial assessment and not a matter of courtesy, and the court must record its reasons in writing. The Explanation removes the commonest excuse: the fact that a pleader is engaged in another court is not a ground for adjournment. Sub-rule (2) adds the day-to-day rule: once the hearing of the suit has commenced, it is to continue from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the court records exceptional reasons for going beyond the following day.
2. The Three-Adjournment Rule
§ The proviso to Rule 1(1) No adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during the hearing of the suit. The cap was inserted by the Amendment Act of 1999 and brought into force in 2002 as part of the delay-reduction programme. Three features of its drafting matter: the cap is per party, not per suit; it applies during the hearing of the suit, that is, once the trial is under way; and it says nothing about what the court is to do if a fourth adjournment becomes unavoidable. |
📖 Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (II), (2005) 6 SCC 344 Among the questions arising on the 1999 and 2002 amendments was the working of the three-adjournment cap. The Supreme Court held that the provision is to be applied in the spirit of its object, which is to curb the routine grant of adjournments; but it does not fetter the court's power where circumstances beyond the control of a party make an adjournment unavoidable, since a party cannot be denied justice for reasons he could not prevent. The Court emphasised that adjournments, where granted, must carry realistic costs, including in appropriate cases the actual costs occasioned to the other side, so that delay is paid for rather than tolerated. Rule: the cap is a strong discipline, not an absolute bar. Where the cause is beyond a party's control, the court retains power to adjourn, but costs are to be real. |
The result is a position that should be stated in two sentences in any answer: three adjournments is the rule, and a fourth is possible only where the circumstances are genuinely beyond the party's control and the court records why. The costs provision in sub-rule (2) is the companion discipline, and the Code strengthens it elsewhere through Section 35B, under which a party who obtains an adjournment may be required to pay the other side's costs of the day as a condition of proceeding further.
3. The Adjourned Date: Rules 2 and 3
§ Order XVII Rules 2 and 3, CPC 1908 Rule 2. 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. Rule 3. Where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce his evidence, or to cause the attendance of his witnesses, or to perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed, the Court may, notwithstanding such default, proceed to decide the suit forthwith. |
Rule 2 compared with Rule 3
Basis | Rule 2 | Rule 3 |
|---|---|---|
Situation | A party fails to appear on the adjourned date | A party is present but has failed to do the act for which time was granted |
What the court does | Disposes of the suit in one of the modes directed by Order IX, or makes such other order as it thinks fit | May proceed to decide the suit forthwith, notwithstanding the default |
Nature of the decision | Where Order IX is applied, the decision is by way of dismissal or ex parte proceeding, not on the merits of the absent party's case | A decision on the merits, on the material then on record |
Remedy of the aggrieved party | The Order IX remedies: restoration under Rule 9, or setting aside an ex parte decree under Rule 13 | No Order IX remedy; the decree is on the merits, and the remedy is an appeal |
The Explanation to Rule 2 | Where the evidence or a substantial part of it has already been recorded, the court may proceed as if the absent party were present, which brings the case within Rule 3 in substance | Applies directly where the party is present |
§ Why the distinction decides cases The consequence, not the label, is what matters. A decision under Rule 2 applying Order IX is met by restoration or setting aside, remedies that turn on sufficient cause for non-appearance and are available in the trial court. A decision under Rule 3 is a judgment on the merits, and the only remedy is an appeal. The Explanation to Rule 2 is the bridge, and it is where litigation concentrates: where a party's evidence has substantially been recorded and he then absents himself, the court may treat him as present, which converts what looks like a default under Rule 2 into a decision on the merits under Rule 3. The practical lesson for an answer: identify first whether the party was present or absent, then whether his evidence had substantially been recorded, and the applicable rule and remedy follow. |
4. Costs of Adjournment
i. Order XVII Rule 1(2). In every case of adjournment the court shall make such orders as to the costs occasioned by the adjournment, or such higher costs as it deems fit. The word shall makes the imposition of costs the rule, not the exception.
ii. Section 35B. Where a party obtains an adjournment on his application, or fails to take a step for which time was granted, the court may order him to pay the costs of the day to the other party, and may direct that he shall not be permitted to proceed further, in the case of a plaintiff with the suit and in the case of a defendant with the defence, until the costs are paid.
iii. Section 35. The general power to award costs, which after the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 operates in commercial suits on a costs follow the event basis, so that the unsuccessful party ordinarily pays the actual reasonable costs of the successful one, with conduct, including the seeking of adjournments, expressly relevant.
5. Landmark Judgments on Order XVII
- Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (II), (2005) 6 SCC 344. The three-adjournment cap does not fetter the court where circumstances are beyond a party's control, and adjournments must carry realistic costs.
- Order XVII Rule 1, Explanation. The engagement of a pleader in another court is not a ground for adjournment where the failure to produce evidence or secure attendance is the pleader's fault.
- Order XVII Rule 2, Explanation, with Rule 3. Where a party's evidence has substantially been recorded and he absents himself, the court may proceed as if he were present, which produces a decision on the merits rather than an Order IX disposal.
- Section 35B CPC. Costs of the day for an adjournment may be made a condition of proceeding further with the suit or the defence.
6. Frequently Asked Questions on Order XVII
On what grounds can a court grant an adjournment?
Only where sufficient cause is shown, and the court must record its reasons in writing. By the Explanation to Rule 1, the engagement of a pleader in another court is not a ground for adjournment where the failure to produce evidence or secure the attendance of witnesses is the pleader's fault.
What is the three-adjournment rule?
The proviso to Order XVII Rule 1(1) provides that no adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during the hearing of the suit. The cap is per party, applies during the hearing, and was introduced as part of the 1999 and 2002 delay-reduction amendments.
Is the three-adjournment cap absolute?
No. Salem Advocate Bar Association (II) holds that the provision does not fetter the court's power where circumstances beyond a party's control make an adjournment unavoidable. The court retains discretion in such cases, but must record reasons, and adjournments are to carry realistic costs.
Must costs be imposed for an adjournment?
Yes, as a rule. Order XVII Rule 1(2) provides that the court shall make such orders as to the costs occasioned by the adjournment or such higher costs as it deems fit, and Section 35B allows the costs of the day to be made a condition of proceeding further with the suit or defence.
What is the difference between Order XVII Rule 2 and Rule 3?
Rule 2 applies where a party fails to appear on the adjourned date, and the court may dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed by Order IX, so the remedies are restoration or setting aside. Rule 3 applies where the party is present but has failed to do what the adjournment was granted for, and the court may decide the suit forthwith on the merits, the remedy then being an appeal.
What is the effect of the Explanation to Order XVII Rule 2?
Where the evidence or a substantial portion of the evidence of a party has already been recorded and that party fails to appear on an adjourned date, the court may in its discretion proceed with the case as if he were present. The decision is then on the merits, and the Order IX remedies are not available.
Must a trial continue from day to day?
Under the proviso to Rule 1(2), once the hearing of the suit has commenced it shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the court finds, for exceptional reasons to be recorded, that an adjournment beyond the following day is necessary.
7. Related Topics in This CPC Series
- Order XV-A: Case Management Hearings in Commercial Suits
- Order XVIII: Hearing of the Suit and Examination of Witnesses
- Order IX: Appearance and Non-Appearance of Parties
- Orders XVI and XVI-A: Summoning and Attendance of Witnesses