Adjournments are among the most contentious aspects of civil litigation in India. Intended as a procedural safeguard to ensure fairness, they allow courts to grant parties time when circumstances prevent effective participation in proceedings. However, over time, adjournments have come to symbolize delay, inefficiency, and abuse of process. In India’s overburdened judiciary, where more than 5 crore cases remain pending, adjournments are frequently cited as a principal cause of delay in civil suits. They are designed to provide flexibility in proceedings and ensure fairness by granting parties adequate time to present their case. However, in practice, adjournments are often misused as a tactic to delay proceedings, harass the opposite party, or prolong litigation. This has resulted in enormous delays in civil justice delivery, contributing significantly to India’s judicial backlog. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), particularly Order XVII, regulates adjournments and restricts them to three per party. Judicial pronouncements have repeatedly stressed that adjournments must be exceptional. The problems associated with adjournments, such as delay, harassment of litigants, and erosion of judicial credibility, are balanced with the necessity of adjournments in genuine circumstances.  Yet, systemic weaknesses, professional practices, and judicial leniency undermine these safeguards. This paper offers a comprehensive analysis of adjournments in civil suits. It traces their legislative evolution, examines statutory provisions, reviews leading case law, and highlights problems caused by misuse. It situates adjournments within the constitutional framework of the right to speedy justice and the principle of fairness. A comparative perspective with jurisdictions like the UK, US, Singapore, Canada, and Australia demonstrates how strict case management reduces abuse. The paper also engages with Law Commission reports, empirical data on judicial delays, and practical challenges. It concludes with reform proposals including stricter enforcement of limits, realistic cost sanctions, case management hearings, and leveraging technology. The goal is to ensure adjournments remain tools of justice rather than weapons of delay.