C.R. No.6850 of 2009 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6850 of 2009 (O & M) Date of decision:01.12.2009 Sandeep Kumar …Petitioner Versus Smt. Bidamo …Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Amit Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) C.M. No.28020-CII of 2009 The application is allowed and Annexures P-4 to P-13 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case This is revision petition by defendant Sandeep Kumar assailing order dated 10.08.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar (Annexure P-1) thereby closing evidence of defendant-petitioner by Court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Perusal of orders (Annexures P-4 to P-13) reveals that the defendant petitioner was granted 10 opportunities for leading his evidence vide said orders. In addition thereto, the defendant was granted 11th opportunity on 10.08.2009. Even prior to order dated 10.01.2009 (Annexure P-4), the defendant had been granted at least one more opportunity because some evidence already stood recorded, because vide order Annexure P-4 dated 10.01.2009, the case was adjourned for C.R. No.6850 of 2009 (O & M) -2- evidence of defendant and also for cross-examination of DW-4. It would depict that the defendant was granted at least 12 opportunities to lead his evidence. Proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that no adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during the hearing of the suit. It is correct that the aforesaid proviso cannot be interpreted very rigidly and some flexibility can be shown. However, the said proviso cannot be given a complete go-bye. This provision has been introduced to curtail delay in the disposal of the suits. It is a very salutary provision. Defendant was granted at least 12 opportunities for leading his evidence including three last opportunities. However, in spite thereof, the defendant failed to lead his evidence. The trial Court had no option, but to close evidence of defendant-petitioner by Court order. In fact, the trial Court has shown over indulgence by granting as many as 12 opportunities at least for the evidence of the defendant. There is no infirmity much less illegality in the impugned order of the trial Court so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is completely bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 01.12.2009 A.Kaundal