Short answer. Yes, but only on proof. Rule 30, Section 3 allows a motion to postpone trial on the ground of illness of a party or counsel if it appears upon affidavit or sworn certification that their presence at the trial is indispensable and that the character of the illness is such as to render their non-attendance excusable.
What the law says
may be granted if it appears upon affidavit or sworn certification that the presence of such party or counsel at the trial is indispensable and that the character of his or her illness is such as to render his or her non-attendance excusable
Rule 30, Section 3 — Requisites of motion to postpone trial for illness of party or counsel. Read the full provision →
Two things the sworn proof must show
The section grants nothing automatically. A motion to postpone on this ground may be granted if it appears upon affidavit or sworn certification of two distinct things: that the presence of such party or counsel at the trial is indispensable, and that the character of his or her illness is such as to render his or her non-attendance excusable. Both must appear, and both are aimed at real problems. Illness of someone whose presence is not actually needed that day moves nothing; and indispensability without a genuinely disabling illness proves only inconvenience.
'May be granted' — it stays discretionary
Notice the verb: the motion may be granted. Even a sworn, complete showing puts the decision in the court's hands rather than compelling a resetting. That reflects where this section sits — inside a Rule built around continuous, pre-scheduled trial dates that the parties are commanded to strictly observe. Postponement is the exception to that structure, so the court weighs the sworn showing against the cost of breaking the schedule, and a party asking for one should assume the request will be examined, not rubber-stamped.
What a well-built motion looks like
Build the motion the way the section reads. The proof must be upon affidavit or sworn certification — an unsworn manifestation or a bare medical excuse slip does not match the text. It should establish indispensability concretely: the ill party was to testify that day, or the ill lawyer is the only counsel who knows the case. And it should describe the illness's character — what it is and why attendance is not reasonably possible — rather than naming a diagnosis and stopping. The section asks for excusable non-attendance, and excusability is shown by facts, not labels.
For the other side, and for planning ahead
For the opposing party, the same two elements are the checklist for resisting a postponement that looks tactical: was the absent person's presence truly indispensable, and does the sworn proof actually describe a disabling illness? For everyone, the practical lesson is preparation — where a party or counsel knows health is fragile, telling the court early and documenting properly beats a last-minute motion. Trials run on dates fixed well in advance; this section is the narrow, sworn-proof gate through which sickness can move one.