C. R. No. 1894 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 1894 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 25, 2010 Punjab State Electricity Board and another .... Petitioners Vs. Krishan Kumar and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendants no.1 and 3 (Punjab State Electricity Board and its Assistant Executive Engineer) have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 02.04.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala, thereby closing evidence of the defendants by court order and also impugning order dated 19.08.2009 (Annexure P-4), passed by the same trial court, thereby dismissing application moved by defendants for recall of order dated 02.04.2008 (Annexure P-1). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the C. R. No. 1894 of 2010 2 case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays that only one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioners for cross-examination of the witness, whose examination-in-chief has already been recorded. I have carefully considered the contention and perused the record. There is laxity on the part of the petitioners on each stage of the case. It appears that the petitioners are taking the courts for a ride thinking that being statutory authority, they will be shown indulgence by the courts or the petitioners are also under the impression that they are not going to suffer personally. Perusal of the record reveals that 14 effective opportunities were granted to the defendants before closing their evidence vide impugned order dated 02.04.2008 (Annexure P-1). However, even thereafter, the petitioners did not wake up out of their deep slumber. They moved application dated 08.08.2008 (Annexure P-2) for recall of order dated 02.04.2008 (Annexure P-1). Thus, even application for recall of order Annexure P-1 was moved more than four months of the passing of the said order. Not only that, said application Annexure P-2 was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 19.08.2009 (Annexure P-4), whereas the instant revision petition was filed on 23.11.2009, but there were many objections, which were ultimately removed in March 2010. Thus, even the instant revision petition was not filed promptly. C. R. No. 1894 of 2010 3 Be that as it may, since the defendants were granted 14 effective opportunities for their evidence by the trial court, no further indulgence is required by this Court by granting another opportunity to the defendants for their evidence. Under proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only three opportunities are required to be given to a party for its evidence. It is correct that said provision, being rule of procedure, is required to be followed with some flexibility and not with extreme rigidity or inflexibility. However, at the same time, the aforesaid salutary provision cannot be given a complete go-by. This provision has been introduced by amendment to curtail delay in the disposal of suits because delay is rightly inviting criticism from all quarters. In the instant case, as many as 14 effective opportunities were granted to the defendants for their evidence and therefore, even following the aforesaid provision with flexibility, no further indulgence can be shown in favour of the petitioners. In fact, the trial court has already shown over-indulgence by granting 14 opportunities to the defendants for their evidence. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality in the impugned orders of the trial court. The instant revision petition is completely devoid of any substance and is accordingly dismissed in limine. May 25, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE