C.R. No.5968 of 2010 (O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5968 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 01.10.2010 Krishan Chand ....…Petitioner Versus Ram Parshad and another ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. S.P.Soi, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.25106-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. CM No.25107-CII of 2010 The application is allowed and zimini orders of the trial Court Annexure P-2 collectively are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case. Plaintiff-Krishan Chand aggrieved by order dated 27.08.2010 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala thereby closing evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner by Court order, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing the instant revision petition to assail the said order Annexure P-1. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently prayed that only one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner-plaintiff to C.R. No.5968 of 2010 (O & M) 2 lead his entire remaining evidence at own responsibility, on payment of costs. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer, but the same cannot be accepted. Perusal of the zimini orders of the Trial Court reveals that the plaintiff-petitioner was granted as many as 21 effective opportunities for 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. It is correct that the said provision being the rule of procedure may not be followed with extreme rigidity and there may be some flexibility in observing the same. However, this provision has been introduced by amendment to curtail delay in disposal of cases as delay in disposal of cases is attracting widespread criticism from all quarters and rightly so. This provision is thus salutary provision to curtail delay in disposal of cases and the said provision cannot be defeated by granting any more opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner in the instant case as already 21 effective opportunities have been granted to the plaintiff-petitioner for his evidence. In fact the trial Court has already granted undue indulgence to the plaintiff-petitioner by granting so many opportunities for his evidence. The revision petition is completely meritless. There is no infirmity much less illegality in the impugned order of the trial Court warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The plaintiff-petitioner appears to be abusing the process of Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 01.10.2010. A. Kaundal