C. R. No. 1697 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 1697 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : March 31, 2010 Bhim Singh Verma .... Petitioner Vs. Prem Sagar Verma and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. A. K. Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 7882-C-II of 2010 : Application is allowed and Annexure P-7 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : Bhim Singh Verma – defendant no. 1 has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging order dated 08.02.2010 (Annexure P-6), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tohana, thereby closing evidence of the petitioner by court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that only three opportunities were granted to defendant no.1-petitioner for his evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that only one more opportunity C. R. No. 1697 of 2010 (O&M) 2 may be granted to the petitioner to lead his remaining evidence at own responsibility on payment of cost. Perusal of the zimni orders of the trial court (Annexure P-7) and other orders reproduced in the revision petition substantiates the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that only three opportunities were granted to defendant no.1-petitioner for his evidence. It is correct that under proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only three opportunities are required to be granted. However, the said rule being procedural, cannot be enforced with rigidity. There has to be some flexibility in the applicability of the rule because rules of procedures are hand-maids of justice and are intended to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart the same. The impugned order would be very harsh for the petitioner. The prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of only one more opportunity on payment of cost appears to be justified. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to the plaintiff-respondent no.1 so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the suit and also to save respondent no.1 of the expenses he may have to incur in engaging counsel for the instant revision petition, if notice of the same is issued to him. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the petitioner to lead his remaining evidence at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- as cost precedent. The petitioner may seek assistance of the Court for summoning evidence, but it shall be no ground to grant any more opportunity, even on the ground of non-service of any witness or non- appearance of any witness in spite of service, or on any other ground whatsoever. March 31, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE