MP HC Upholds Refusal To Adjourn 9-Year-Old Suit At Final Arguments, Finding No Acceptable Ground for Delay

The petitioner challenged an order of the 18th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Indore, rejecting his application under Order XVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking an adjournment.

The trial court recorded that the suit, instituted in 2017, was at the final-arguments stage; the petitioner sought time to approach the High Court regarding an earlier order, but had not produced an order granting interim relief.

The trial court also noted prior applications and opportunities, and directed the petitioner to present final arguments on the next date.

At the High Court hearing, counsel stated that final arguments were listed for 16 November 2026

Order XVII Rule 1 CPC permits adjournment where sufficient cause is shown, subject to the provision’s restrictions, including that an adjournment at a party’s request should not be granted unless circumstances are beyond that party’s control.

Section 151 CPC preserves the court’s inherent power to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process.

Under Article 227, the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction is limited; interference is warranted where the subordinate court’s order discloses illegality or perversity

The High Court considered that the suit had been pending since 2017 and was at the stage of final arguments.

The petitioner’s request for time to approach the High Court was unsupported by any interim order, and the record showed prior opportunities and applications.

The Court found no legally acceptable sufficient cause for another adjournment and held that the trial court had exercised its discretion judicially and in accordance with law.

In those circumstances, the order disclosed neither perversity nor illegality warranting supervisory intervention

Finding the petition without merit, it dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition