C. R. No. 5815 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 5815 of 2009 Date of Decision : March 30, 2010 Avinash Singh Grewal .... Petitioner Vs. Mani Parkash Sharma and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. A. D. S. Jattana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ishwar Lal, Advocate for respondents no. 1 and 2. None for respondents no. 4 and 5. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by defendant no.2 Avinash Singh Grewal under Article 227 of the Constitution of India thereby assailing order dated 17.04.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dera Bassi, thereby closing evidence of the petitioner by court order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that C. R. No. 5815 of 2009 2 the petitioner may be granted only one more opportunity to lead his evidence at own responsibility on payment of cost. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on three judgments of this Court namely Karnail Singh vs. M/s Gurdev Singh Balwant Singh reported as 2000 (2) R. C. R. (Civil) 261, Surjit Singh vs. Megh Raj reported as 1993 (2) R. R. R. 683 and Surinder Kaur vs. Pakhar Singh and others reported as 1990 (1) Cur. L. J. 71. It is also contended that counsel for the petitioner in the lower court did not inform the petitioner about the proceedings/stage of the suit and therefore, the petitioner has even made complaint (Annexure P-4) against the said Advocate to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2- plaintiffs vehemently opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Perusal of the zimni orders of the trial court, as reproduced in the instant revision petition, reveals that ten effective opportunities including four last opportunities were granted to the defendants to lead their evidence. Consequently, the trial court was left with no option, but to close the evidence of the defendants (except defendants no.4 and 5, who had led their evidence and closed it) by court order. Proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) lays down that not more than three adjournments shall be granted to a party for its evidence. In the instant case, the trial court granted as many as ten effective opportunities including four last opportunities to the defendants to lead their evidence. Consequently, no fault can be found with the impugned order of the trial court because there was no other course open to the trial court except to close the evidence of the defendants including the petitioner by court order. It is correct that Order 17 Rule 1 CPC including the aforesaid C. R. No. 5815 of 2009 3 proviso is a rule of procedure and therefore, it may not be held to be mandatory. However, this provision has been introduced by amendment to curtail delay in disposal of the suits and therefore, the provision cannot be given a complete go-by. The rule has to be applied with some flexibility, but at the same time, the rule cannot be stretched to grant numberless opportunities to a party to lead its evidence. In the instant case, ten opportunities were granted to the defendants to lead their evidence as against the maximum number of three opportunities laid down in the aforesaid provision. Consequently, no ground for granting any further adjournment or opportunity to the petitioner for leading his evidence is made out. The contention that petitioner's counsel in the lower court did not inform the petitioner regarding the stage of the case in the trial court also does not help the petitioner because it was the duty of the petitioner to contact the counsel and not vice-versa. The petitioner should have been vigilant to pursue his case. Merely by shifting the onus to his counsel in the lower court, the petitioner cannot gain the sympathy of this Court. Judgments in the cases of Karnail Singh, Surjit Singh and Surinder Kaur (supra), cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, have no applicability to the facts of the instant case for two reasons. Firstly, it has to be seen in the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether any ground for any further opportunity is made out or not. Secondly, all the aforesaid judgments were rendered when the aforesaid provision i.e. Order 17 Rule 1 CPC with its proviso was not on statute book. The aforesaid provision has been inserted by amendment only to curtail the delay in the disposal of the suits, which is justifiably attracting widespread criticism. This is salutary provision to avoid such criticism. The petitioner has been granted sufficient number of opportunities in the instant case. No ground for granting any further adjournment or opportunity is made out in the C. R. No. 5815 of 2009 4 instant case. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. March 30, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE