R. S. A. No. 1721 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1721 of 2009 Date of Decision : February 05, 2010 M/s Surinder Kumar Ravi Kumar and another .... Appellants Vs. State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG, Punjab for the respondents. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is second appeal by plaintiffs having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. I need not go into the merits of the case in view of limited question involved. Evidence of the plaintiffs was closed by trial court by court order dated 24.04.2008 and since no evidence had been led by the plaintiffs, the suit was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree of even date. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs stands dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 04.12.2008. R. S. A. No. 1721 of 2009 2 Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that it was last opportunity for the evidence of the plaintiffs on 24.04.2008 and in all, it was fourth opportunity. It is stated that appellant no.2 Ravi Kumar, who is partner of appellant no.1 firm, was going to Court to produce evidence, but on the way, he learnt that mother of his partner had expired and consequently, he had to return and could not produce evidence on that day. Learned counsel for the appellants accordingly prays that one more opportunity may be granted to the appellants for leading their evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that sufficient opportunities were granted to the plaintiffs by the trial court to lead their evidence and therefore, no justification is made out for grant of any more opportunity to the plaintiffs for their evidence. It is, however, undisputed that in all, four effective opportunities were granted to the plaintiffs for their evidence by the trial court. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Under proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, three opportunities are required to be granted to a party for his evidence. However, the said provision, being a rule of procedure, is not to be enforced or applied with rigidity. Some flexibility has to be there because rules of procedures are hand-maids of justice and are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart the same. The aforesaid provision cannot be said to be mandatory, but is only directory in nature. Coming to the facts of the instant case, the plaintiffs were granted four opportunities for their evidence. However, on 24.04.2008, when it was last opportunity for their evidence, the plaintiffs could not lead their evidence on account of death of mother of a partner of appellant no.1 firm. Death Certificate (Annexure A-1) has been placed on record to substantiate this plea. However, even if the same be ignored, the ends of justice would be served, if keeping in view all the circumstances, one more opportunity is granted to the plaintiffs for their evidence, on payment of R. S. A. No. 1721 of 2009 3 cost. For the reasons recorded herein above, the instant appeal is allowed and judgments and decrees of both the courts below are set aside and the suit is remanded to trial court for fresh decision in accordance with law. The plaintiffs would be granted only one more opportunity for their evidence at own responsibility, by the trial court, subject to payment of Rs.7,500/- as cost precedent. The plaintiffs may take assistance of the Court to summon their evidence, but it shall be no ground for seeking any further adjournment even on the ground of non-service of summons on the witnesses or non-appearance of any witness inspite of service or for any other reason. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 08.03.2010. February 05, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE