Civil Revision No. 6871 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6871 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 9th, 2011 Raj Rani and another .... Petitioners Versus Gurdayal and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. In the suit brought by Raj Rani and Kanta Rani for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction, the evidence of the plaintiffs had been closed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak vide order dated 17.9.2011 on their failure to conclude the same. Mr. Dinesh Arora, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that one opportunity is required to be given to the plaintiffs to conclude their evidence. The petitioners have, consequently, prayed for setting aside the order dated 17.9.2011 by way of this revision petition and have prayed for grant of one opportunity to them to conclude the evidence. On 17.9.2011, cross examination of Smt. Kanta, put in the Civil Revision No. 6871 of 2011 2 .. witness box as PW-2, had been completed. No other PW was present and an adjournment was sought by learned counsel for the plaintiffs for plaintiffs' evidence, which was highly opposed. Taking note of the fact that it was last opportunity to the plaintiffs to produce their entire evidence, for their failure to produce the evidence, the evidence was closed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there had been confusion in the case on the part of learned trial court because after closing of evidence of defendants, learned trial court adjourned the case for rebuttal evidence on 18.5.2010. According to him, on the next day, realizing the mistake, the case was postponed to 14.10.2010 for evidence of the plaintiffs. According to him, for such like confusion, plaintiffs could not complete their evidence and they deserve an opportunity to produce their evidence. He has cited before me a number of decisions of this court which may be mentioned in chronological order as under :- Satpal Sharma Pujari Vs. Chand Parkash Maghan and others, 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 248; State Bank of India Vs. M/s Aman Tex Fabrics and others, 2007 (4) RCR (Civil 511; Puran Chand alias Raju Vs. Gopal Krishan and others, 2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 598; Gurvinder Singh Vs. Government of India and others, 2011(1) RCR (Civil) 638; and Devinder Sehdev Vs. Malkiat Singh 2011 AIR CC 646. In none of the decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners had availed more than 4-5 opportunities before Civil Revision No. 6871 of 2011 3 .. closing of their evidence. In the case in hand, even if the adjournment for 20.7.2010 is excluded from consideration, which was inadvertently granted for rebuttal evidence, the plaintiffs have availed nine clear opportunities, including a number of last opportunities, to produce their evidence. They did not summon any witness in the course of the same. It is stated before me that some witness was sought to be summoned after the closure of the evidence, which would not help the petitioner in any manner. The rules of procedure are certainly hand maid to justice. They have to operate to advance the cause of justice. However, the plaintiffs have availed three times the number of opportunities, which can be allowed to a party under the provisions of Order 17 Rule 1 CPC. In these circumstances, the facts of none of the reported cases draw a parallel to the facts of this case. Consequently, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and dismiss the revision petition. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE November 9th, 2011 som