C.R. No.7081 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7081 of 2010 Date of Decision: 28.10.2010 Visakha Singh ....…Petitioner Versus Gaura Singh and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. R.M. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Defendant No.1-Visakha Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail order dated 09.09.2010 Annexure P-2 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur thereby closing evidence of defendants by Court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that only one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner for his remaining evidence at own responsibility on payment of costs. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer, but find myself unable to accept the same. Perusal of the zimini orders since 27.08.2008 onwards as reproduced in the revision petition reveals that since 27.08.2008, the defendants were granted 11 effective opportunities for their evidence. In addition thereto, the case was for the first time adjourned on 07.08.2007 for the evidence of the defendants and, therefore, till 27.08.2008 also, the defendants must have availed of some opportunities for their evidence, but the petitioner C.R. No.7081 of 2010 2 has intentionally not reproduced zimini orders of the said period in the revision petition. It would mean that defendants availed of around 15 opportunities for their evidence. According to proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only 3 opportunities are required to be given to a party for its evidence. It is correct that the said provision being rule of procedure may not be followed with extreme rigidity and may be followed with some flexibility. However, the said provision has been introduced by amendment in order to curb widespread criticism of delay in the disposal of the cases. Consequently, the said salutary provision cannot be given a complete go-bye and cannot be made redundant by granting one more opportunity to the petitioner in the instant case. The defendants have already been granted almost 15 opportunities for their evidence. No justification even on the principle of equity justice or good conscience, much less on the basis of statutory provision, is made out for granting any more opportunity to the petitioner for his remaining evidence. There is no infirmity much less illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial Court. On the contrary, the trial Court has already shown over indulgence to the defendants by granting them so many opportunities for their evidence. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 28.10.2010. A. Kaundal