a litigant is not entitled to choose the personnel of the Court to hear his case, nor can he insist upon an adjournment of the case because the date fixed for hearing is not convenient to his counsel. Convenience of counsel must subserve the larger interest of the administration of justice. …
R. Viswanathan v. Rukn-ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid AIR 1963 SC 1
Para 13: … Even when witnesses are present, cases are adjourned on far less serious reasons or even on flippant grounds. Adjournments are granted even in such situations on the mere asking for it. Quite often such adjournments are granted to suit the convenience of the advocate concerned. We make it clear that the legislature has frowned at granting adjournments on that ground. At any rate inconvenience of an advocate is not a “special reason” ….
State of U.P. V/s Shambhu Nath Singh, (2001) 4 SCC 667
