As per the proviso to order 17 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code restriction of three adjournments is provided. In the aforesaid said provision the statute has provides guidelines not to grant adjournment to any party on more than three occasions.

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that the said guidelines were directory and not mandatory. But at the same time it also does not put complete fetters on the courts discretion to grant adjournment on fourth occasion on special and extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of party.

The court can also grant adjournment even in cases, which may not directly come within the category of circumstances beyond the control of a party by resorting to provision of higher costs which can also include punitive costs.

Shivnath Sahdeo & Anr. vs. Bangai Sahdeo AIR 2006 Allahabad 282

The delay in handing over of the possession of a flat to the purchaser and for want of municipal corporation approval it was held that there was deficiency in service on part of the builder company. The purchaser was entitled to refund of earnest money with interest.

Howrah Enclave P. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Durga Venue AIR 2006 (NOC) 1259 (NCC) 2006 (4) ALJ 735

The Indian Airlines had increased the air fare without contacting or notifying the enhancement of fares to passengers with advance tickets.

The aforesaid act had caused inconvenience and mental agony to passengers which amounts to deficiency in service and the airlines was liable to pay compensation to the passengers.

Indian Airlines Ltd & Anr. vs. NripendraKumar Bhatacharyya AIR 2006 (NOC) 1260 (NCC) 2006 (4) ALJ 740

According to the above doctrine if courts can render an unreasonable restraint reasonable by scratching out the offensive portions of the covenant, they should do so and then enforce the remainder.

As per the above doctrine it is the duty of the court to sever and separate trivial or the technical parts by retaining the main or substantial part and by giving effect to the latter if it is legal, lawful and otherwise enforceable.

As per Halsbory’s Law of England (4th Edn. Vol. 9) p. 297 para 430:

“430. Severance of illegal and void provisions – A contract will rarely be totally illegal or void and certain parts of it may be entirely lawful in themselves. The question therefore arises whether the illegal or void parts may be separated or "severed” from the contract and the rest of the contract enforced without them. Nearly all the cases arise in the context of restraint of trade, but the following principles are applicable to contracts in general.”
As per P. Ramanatta Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edn. 2005 Vol. 1 pages 553 – 554:

“Blue pencil doctrine (test.) – A judicial standard for deciding whether to invalidate the whole contract or only the offending words. Under this standard only the offending words are invalidated if it would be possible to delete them simply by running a blue pencil through them, as opposed to changing, adding or rearranging words (Black, 7th Edn. 1999).

Beed District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2006 (8) SCC 514

The right to property of a person would include a right to construct a building. Such a right however, can be restricted by reason of a legislation.

Town planning legislations are regulatory in nature. The right to construct a building can only be regulated in terms of a regulatory statute. A application for grant of permission for construction of a building is required to be decided in accordance with law applicable on the day on which such permission is granted. However a statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable time.

T. Vijaya Lakshmi & Ors vs. Town Planning Member & Anr. (2006) 8 SCC 502

Private companies or a society, which is not “State” would not normally be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, but in certain circumstances, a writ may issue to such private bodies or persons, as there may be statutory provisions which need to be complied with by all concern including private companies and societies. If they violate such statutory provisions a writ may certainly be issued for compliance of those provisions.

The difficulty in issuing a writ may arise where there may not be any non-compliance with or violation of any statutory provision by the private body. In that event, the writ may not be issued at all. Other remedies as may be available, may have to be resorted to.

What is material is the nature of the statutory duty placed upon it and the court will enforce such statutory duty. Although it is not easy to define what a public function or public duty is, it can reasonably said that such functions are similar to or closely related to those performable by the State in its sovereign capacity.

K. Marappan vs. Dy. Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Namakkal Circle Namakkal & Anr. (2006) 134 Comp. case 204 (Mad).