C. R. No. 5769 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 5769 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 08, 2010 Bhim Sain .... Petitioner Vs. Gurdev Singh and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. G. C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiff Bhim Sain has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 07.04.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, thereby closing evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner 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 plaintiff-petitioner to lead his remaining evidence at own responsibility on payment of cost. C. R. No. 5769 of 2010 2 I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to tell as to how many effective opportunities were granted to the plaintiff-petitioner by trial court for his evidence. However, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner states that more than ten effective opportunities were granted to the plaintiff-petitioner for his evidence by the trial court. Keeping in view the same, I find no justification for granting any more opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner for his remaining evidence. Proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure stipulates that not more than three adjournments shall be granted to a party for its evidence. It is correct that the said provision being procedural is directory and not mandatory. It may not be followed with extreme rigidity. However, at the same time, it cannot be followed in complete breach. Delay in disposal of cases by the Courts is attracting widespread criticism from all quarters and rightly so. To curb this evil, the aforesaid salutary provision had been introduced in the Code of Civil Procedure by amendment. The salutary purpose to be achieved by this provision cannot be defeated by granting numberless opportunities to a party for its evidence. Grant of more than ten effective opportunities to the plaintiff-petitioner for his evidence by the trial court is more than sufficient and no more indulgence can be shown by this Court in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no illegality in the impugned order of the trial court warranting interference C. R. No. 5769 of 2010 3 by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It cannot be said that the trial court has exercised jurisdiction which did not vest in it or has refused to exercise jurisdiction, which vested in it or has exercised jurisdiction with illegality or material irregularity so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional power. The impugned order does not suffer from any such illegality. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. September 08, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE