C. R. No. 772 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 772 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 07, 2010 Sunita Jain .... Petitioner Vs. Tarsem Jindal and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No.11384-C-II of 2010 : Allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. C. M. No.11385-C-II of 2010 : Application is allowed and annexed zimni orders of the trial court are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : Sunita Jain plaintiff has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing the instant revision petition to assail order dated 26.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dera Bassi, thereby closing C. R. No. 772 of 2010 (O&M) 2 plaintiff's evidence by court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that only one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner for her remaining evidence at own responsibility. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer, but find no merit therein. Perusal of the zimni orders of the trial court placed on record reveals that at least 13 effective opportunities were granted to the plaintiff- petitioner for her evidence. Under proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC), only three opportunities are required to be granted to a party for its evidence. It is correct that being rule of procedure, the same may not be adhered to very rigidly. However, at the same time, the said salutary provision of law cannot be brushed aside completely. This provision has been introduced by amendment to curtail delay in disposal of cases. It is well known that delay in disposal of cases is inviting severe criticism from all stake holders and also the general public. In order to curtail the delay, this provision was introduced. Some flexibility may be desirable in following the aforesaid provision, but flexibility cannot be extended to endless and numberless adjournments being granted for evidence of one party. In the instant case, the trial court was justified in closing the plaintiff's evidence by court order after granting 13 opportunities C. R. No. 772 of 2010 (O&M) 3 for her evidence including many last opportunities. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no illegality in the impugned order of the trial court, so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is thus found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. May 07, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE