C. R. No. 7093 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No.7093 of 2009 Date of Decision : December 02, 2009 Rajbir .... Petitioner Vs. Om Parkash and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India preferred by plaintiff no.1 Rajbir assailing order dated 13.11.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal (Annexure P-8) thereby closing the evidence of the plaintiffs i.e. petitioner and proforma respondent no.13 by court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the plaintiffs were granted six effective opportunities, but they failed to conclude their evidence. Under proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, nor more than three adjournments are required to be granted. Of course, the said provision cannot be interpreted or applied very rigidly, but granting of six effective opportunities was sufficient for the plaintiffs to conclude their C. R. No. 7093 of 2009 2 evidence. Apparently therefore, there appears to be no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that examination-in-chief of the petitioner has already been recorded and he could not appear on 13.11.2009 in the trial court for his cross-examination because of marriage of his niece fixed for the same date. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that only cross-examination of the petitioner is to be recorded and some documents per se admissible in evidence are to be produced and therefore, one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner for the same. In view of the aforesaid submissions, I intend to accept the prayer of the petitioner on payment of heavy cost. I also intend to dispose of this revision petition without issuing notice to the respondents so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the suit and also to save the respondents of the expenses of engaging counsel for the purpose of this revision petition, if notices are issued to them. For the reasons recorded herein above, in the interest of justice, the instant revision petition is disposed of with direction to the trial court to grant only one opportunity to the plaintiffs (petitioner and respondent no.13) to lead their remaining evidence, which shall be limited to cross- examination of the petitioner (whose examination-in-chief as witness is already said to have been recorded) and production of documents, which are per se admissible in evidence, subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- as cost precedent. December 02, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE