Civil Revision No. 5928 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5928 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 26th,2011 Ram Karan .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. S.R.Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. Ram Karan, one of the L.Rs of deceased plaintiff – Het Ram, has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 16.9.2011 (Annexure P1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panchkula, whereby the evidence of the plaintiffs has been closed by order of the court. Plaintiff – Het Ram filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the land measuring 9 bighas 13 biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Karanpur, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula. Het Ram died during the pendency of the suit and his L.Rs., Ram Civil Revision No. 5928 of 2011 2 .. Karan and others were brought on record to represent his cause. On 16.9.2011, one PW was present and was examined. No other witness of the plaintiff was present. An adjournment was sought, which was strongly opposed. The impugned order shows that the perusal of the file revealed to the learned trial court that it was 10th opportunity to the plaintiff for his evidence. Taking into account the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) allowing only three opportunities for evidence of the party, no case was found for further adjournment of the case for evidence of the plaintiff and the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiff has brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri S.R.Hooda, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Halqa Patwari alone is to be examined in this case to prove some revenue documents. According to him, the documents which are sought to be proved through Halqa Patwari are not the documents in the possession of the petitioner. According to him, the documents, more over, are copies of the revenue record and they are part of the public record and there could be no doubt about the genuineness thereof. He has submitted that in these circumstances, the interest of justice required the trial court to give one opportunity to the plaintiff. Civil Revision No. 5928 of 2011 3 .. I could not understand as to how certified copies of record of rights would require a Halqa Patwari to be examined to prove them. These documents can be tendered in evidence without formal proof of their preparation. The interest of justice would some time require the court not to comply with the provisions of Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code which provides for grant of three adjournments to a party for its evidence. This provision of the Code is directory and not mandatory. If it is found by the court that the other party is guilty of delay, then punitive costs could be imposed. Learned trial court would have been justified if by imposing punitive costs, an opportunity could have been granted to the plaintiff to lead his evidence. Keeping in view the fact that the documents to be produced on record are part of the record of rights and the witness to be examination is official witness, the revision petition is allowed. However, one opportunity shall be grant to the plaintiff to lead his aforesaid evidence subject to payment of Rs.3000/- as costs to the other side. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE September 26th , 2011 som