C.R. No.5069 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5069 of 2010 Date of Decision: 13.08.2010 Surta Singh .……Petitioner Versus Talok Singh and another ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiff-Surta Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by order dated 27.07.2010 passed learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar thereby closing evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner by Court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that only one more opportunity may be granted to the plaintiff-petitioner to lead his evidence at own responsibility on payment of costs. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the plaintiff was granted seven effective opportunities for his evidence, but he failed to conclude his evidence. According to proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only three opportunities are required to be granted to a party for its evidence. The said provision being rule of procedure has been held to be directory and not mandatory. Rules of procedure are meant to advance the ends of justice and not to thwart the same. Closing of evidence of a party is a drastic and harsh order as the party gets non-suited without real C.R. No.5069 of 2010 -2- adjudication on merit. In the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence on payment of costs. I may, however, sound note of caution that I should not be misunderstood to mean that the plaintiff was not granted sufficient opportunities for his evidence or that the trial Court committed any illegality by closing the plaintiff's evidence after granting seven effective opportunities. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to the respondents so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the revision petition and also to save respondents from the expenses which they may have to incur in engaging counsel for the revision petition if notice of revision petition is issued to them. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant revision petition is allowed and the trial Court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner to lead his evidence at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs precedent. The petitioner may take assistance of the Court to summon evidence, but not more than one opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner even on the ground of non- service of any witness or non-appearance of any witness despite service or on any other ground whatsoever. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 13.08.2010 A. Kaundal