IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 1.12.2009 1.Civil Revision No.7078 of 2009 (O&M) M/s Nucon Switchgear (P) Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Chief Engineer/MM, DHBVNL and Others ...Respondents 2.Civil Revision No.7079 of 2009 (O&M) M/s Nucon Switchgear (P) Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Chief Engineer/MM, DHBVNL and Others ...Respondents 3.Civil Revision No.7080 of 2009 (O&M) M/s Nucon Switchgear (P) Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Chief Engineer/MM, DHBVNL and Others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Sh. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner. *** HARBANS LAL, J. This judgment shall dispose of Civil Revisions bearing Nos. 7078 of 2009, 7079 of 2009 and 7080 of 2009 bearing caption M/s Nucon Switchgear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Chief Engineer and Others as these have arisen out of the order dated 24.8.2009 (P-1) passed by the Court of Learned Addl. District Judge, Panchkula whereby the evidence of the petitioner was closed by order of the Court and the order dated 10.11.2009 (P-2) whereby the application filed for review of the order, Annexure P-1 has also been dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with a good deal of Civil Revision No.7078 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Civil Revision No.7079 of 2009 (O&M) Civil Revision No.7080 of 2009 (O&M) force that on February 2, 2009 the learned Additional District Judge fixed the case for 17.3.2009 for evidence of the petitioner. On that day, the matter was adjourned to 16.4.2009. However, since the Presiding Officer happened to be on leave, the matter was adjourned to 12.5.09 on which date, the request of the petitioner for adjournment of the case was granted with a direction to the petitioner to produce the entire evidence on 23.7.2009 on which date, the last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to conclude its evidence on 24.8.2009. The petitioner intended to examine only Harminder Paul, Director-Cum-Authorized person of the petitioner Firm to depose in the case. The said witness is residing at Ludhiana. The affidavit to be tendered on behalf of the said witness by way of his Examination-in-Chief was in fact prepared and a copy of the same was handed over to the learned counsel for the respondent so that the counsel may prepare the questionnaire and one additional visit of the witness to Panchkula Courts may be avoided. This document to be filed by the petitioner by way of his Examination-in-Chief was handed over on 24.8.2009. The learned trial court adjourned the matter to 22.9.2009 and the petitioner was under the bonafide impression that this date has been fixed only for Cross-examination of the witness. The counsel even noted the date of 22.9.2009 for Pws on its brief. On 22.9.2009 the aforementioned witness was present in the Court. However, it transpired on the proceedings that the evidence of the petitioner had already been shut out by the Court vide order dated 24.8.2009. Faced with the situation, the petitioner moved an application for review of the order dated 24.8.2009, which has also been dismissed. I have well considered these submissions. Whether adjournment should or should not be granted depends upon the circumstances on the date of hearing. Refusal of adjournment on the ground that previous adjournments were frivolous is improper. Sir Jacob on Reform of Civil Procedural Law concludes “The Belgium Reporter has warned against the danger Civil Revision No.7078 of 2009 (O&M) -3- Civil Revision No.7079 of 2009 (O&M) Civil Revision No.7080 of 2009 (O&M) that accelerating the process of law might lead, not to attainment of justice, but to arbitrariness in the legal process. It has been authoritatively pronounced that it is the duty of the court to consider the sufficiency of the cause for which an adjournment was sought and that this is the minimum requirement of the rule of fair trial. Each party has a right to demand reasonable opportunity to prove its case though none has right to stagger or stall the progress of the suit without reasonable or “sufficient cause”. The Procedural prescriptions are the handmaids of justice. Their object is to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart the ends of justice. Adverting to the present one, palpably, the learned trial court has not considered the sufficiency of the cause for which an adjournment was sought. Taking into consideration the cumulative facts referred to hereinbefore, the impugned orders are hereby set aside. To enable the Court to decide the case effectively and completely on the basis of evidence to be adduced by the petitioner, the trial court is directed to afford one more opportunity to the petitioner to conclude its evidence subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- as costs. The date for the evidence to be let in by the petitioner shall be fixed by the learned trial court. Accordingly, all these three petitions stands disposed of. Dasti copy of this order be given under the signatures of the Reader of this Bench. December 1, 2009 (HARBANS LAL) poonam-II JUDGE