C. R. No. 5800 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 5800 of 2009 Date of Decision : January 19, 2010 Parminder Kaur – minor (through her maternal uncle and next friend Gurmail Singh) .... Petitioner Vs. Kulwinder Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. L. S. Sidhu, Advocate for the respondents. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiff Parminder Kaur (minor) has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 24.08.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talwandi Sabo, thereby closing evidence of the plaintiff- petitioner by court order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner may be granted one more opportunity to lead her entire remaining evidence at own responsibility. On the other hand, learned counsel for the C. R. No. 5800 of 2009 2 respondents contended that on 09.06.2009, counsel for plaintiff had made statement undertaking to lead the remaining evidence on next date of hearing at own responsibility, failing which the evidence of the plaintiff shall be deemed to be closed and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any more opportunity. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The plaintiff is a minor and has filed the instant suit through her maternal uncle as next friend. Defendant no.1 is father of the plaintiff, whereas defendants no.2 and 3 are grand parents of the plaintiff. Mother of plaintiff had allegedly died at the hands of defendants no.1 to 3. Defendant no. 4 is minor sister of the plaintiff. In all, four opportunities were given to the plaintiff by the trial court. Under proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only three opportunities are to be granted. However, the said provision cannot be interpreted and applied with rigidity or rigor being rule of procedure. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is minor and has filed the suit as indigent person, in my considered opinion, interest of justice would be served if the plaintiff is granted another opportunity to lead her remaining evidence on payment of moderate amount of cost. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to grant one more opportunity to the plaintiff- petitioner to lead her remaining evidence at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.2,500/- as cost precedent. The plaintiff may take assistance of the Court for summoning evidence, but not more than one opportunity shall be granted to the plaintiff even on ground of non-service of witness or non-appearance of witness inspite of service or for any other reason whatsoever. January 19, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE