Under the amended O XVII Rule 1 (Act No. 46 of 1999, w.e.f 1-7-2002), the restriction to adjournments in limted to three. Similary the code is amended as where the illness of a pleader or his inability to conduct the case for any reason, other than his being engaged in another Court, is put forward as a ground for adjournment, the Court shall not grant the adjournment unless it is satisfied that the party applying for adjournment could not have engaged another pleader in time.
However, I have my own doubts whether the same is followed by courts.
As per the provision of Order 17 Rule 1 CPC a party shall not allow adjournment not more than three times but hon'ble Apex court in Salem Bar Advocate Association has held that this provision is directory and not mandatory. if the party seeking adjournments more than 3 satisfy the court that the ground for adjournment is beyond his control and exceptional in nature then the party can be allowed adjournment more than 3.