S.B. Shukre, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants at length. None appears for the respondent. Admit. Taken up for final hearing pursuant to the order dated 29th March 2017.

2. By this revision application, legality and correctness of the order passed on 26.10.2016 below an adjournment application (exhibit 71) by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No. 850 of 2009 has been questioned.

3. Shri Patrikar, learned counsel for the applicants has taken me through the series of applications filed for adjourning the suit by the respondent which are forming part of paper book of this revision application. These applications are dated 17.6.2016 (exhibit 59), dated 30.8.2016 (exhibit 62), dated 20.9.2016 (exhibit 63D), dated 6.10.2016 (exhibit 65) and dated 21.10.2016 (exhibit 68). All these applications were filed by the respondent for seeking adjournment. First application (exhibit 59) was filed on the ground of non-availability of the respondent in town as he was on pilgrimage. Second application (exhibit 62) was filed on the ground that the respondent was suffering from viral fever. Subsequent applications (exhibits 63D, 65 and 68) were also filed on the same ground as illness of the respondent. No medical certificates were filed and no effort was made by respondent to demonstrate that the ground taken in all these applications was genuine. The trial Court, it appears, was extremely kind to the respondent/plaintiff in allowing all his applications despite his showing no inclination to support the ground taken by respondent in these applications. Application (exhibit 63D) was not opposed, but a prayer was made by the applicant for imposing costs of Rs. 5000/- upon the respondent. The order was passed allowing the said application, by way of last chance, subject to payment of meagre costs of Rs. 200/-.

4. One would think that once last chance was granted, the Court would be careful enough not to further adjourn the matter as there is no question of giving any more chance after last chance has been granted. But, the trial Court was kind enough to the respondent and chose to grant him further last chance when it allowed subsequent application (exhibit 65) subject to payment of costs of Rs. 300/-. This time, the trial Court gave a direction to the respondent that if he did not make himself available, appropriate order will be passed. With such a direction in place, one would be rest assured that on plaintiff's failure to appear on the next date the "appropriate order" will be the dismissal of suit. However, that was not to be as the orders passed on subsequent dates disclose.

5. Such an attitude of the trial Court only emboldened the respondent to be even more brazen in seeking adjournments as he filed yet another application on 21.10.2016 giving the same ground as the earlier one. The trial Court allowed this application also giving the same direction that if the plaintiff (present respondent) did not make himself available before the Court for cross examination, the suit would be dismissed.

6. It appears, the respondent had complete idea what the trial Court would do to his suit even if he filed yet another application for adjournment and trial Court it appears from the order impugned in this revision application, which is the order passed below application for grant of adjournment (exhibit 71) dated 26.10.2016, did not disappoint the respondent. The trial Court allowed even this application by only observing that the adjournment was being granted as a last chance subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500/with a direction, in case of failure, appropriate orders will be passed. All these orders passed by the trial Court in the absence of any proof being produced before it in support of ground of illness taken in the adjournment applications only exhibit complete disregard of the mandate of the provisions of Order 17, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Time and again this Court as well as the Hon'ble