C. R. No. 5758 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 5758 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 08, 2010 Sher Singh and others .... Petitioners Vs. Hari Ram and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendants no.1 to 4 have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge order dated 28.07.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rewari (Annexure P-1), thereby closing evidence of the defendants by court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays that only one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioners to lead their remaining C. R. No. 5758 of 2010 2 evidence at own responsibility on payment of cost. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer. Perusal of paragraph 3 of the revision petition reveals that the petitioners were granted seven effective opportunities for their evidence. Their plea that they noted down the wrong date of hearing as 22.08.2010 instead of 22.07.2010 cannot be accepted because 22.08.2010 happened to be Sunday, which could not be noted as date of hearing by the petitioners. Moreover, their counsel appeared in the trial court on 22.07.2010 and the trial court even thereafter granted one more opportunity to the petitioners for their evidence by fixing the case for 28.07.2010 and therefore, counsel in the lower court had ample opportunity to contact the petitioners during the intervening period. Having said as aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that the aforesaid prayer of the counsel for the petitioners can be accepted, subject to payment of heavy cost. The suit is of the year 2005 i.e. almost five years old. The petitioners were granted seven effective opportunities for their evidence as against the maximum number of three adjournments stipulated by proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the said provision being rule of procedure is directory and not mandatory. Ends of justice would be met if the petitioners are granted one more opportunity for their evidence on payment of heavy cost. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to the respondents so as to avoid further delay in the disposal C. R. No. 5758 of 2010 3 of the suit and to save the respondents of the expenses, which they may have to incur in engaging counsel for the revision petition, if notice thereof is issued to them. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and trial court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the petitioners for their remaining evidence at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.7,500/- as cost precedent, payable to plaintiff-respondent no.1. Petitioners may take assistance of the Court for summoning evidence. However, not more than one opportunity shall be granted to the petitioners for their evidence, 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. September 08, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE