C.R. No.7154 of 2009(O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7154 of 2009(O & M) Date of Decision: 13.01.2010. Hawa Singh and others .……Petitioners Versus Dalip Singh and another ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Vijay Singh Kajla, Advocate for the petitioners. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.412-CII of 2010 The application is allowed and Annexures P-5 to P-9 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case. Plaintiffs have filed this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 28.08.2009 (Annexure P- 3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar thereby closing evidence of the plaintiffs by Court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Perusal of zimini orders (Annexures P-5 to P-9) reveals that the plaintiffs were granted 5 opportunities in all and out of it, on one date, three witnesses of the plaintiffs were present, but could not be examined as counsel for defendants was out of station. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the petitioners may be granted only one more opportunity to lead their C.R. No.7154 of 2009(O & M) -2- remaining evidence at their own responsibility on payment of costs. I have carefully considered the aforesaid submission. It is true that under proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, not more than three adjournments should be granted. However, this rule of procedure cannot be applied with rigidity and some relaxation is always permissible in rules of procedure, particularly to advance the ends of justice. Keeping in view all the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the petitioners are granted another opportunity to lead their remaining evidence at own responsibility on payment of heavy costs. The petitioners are also guilty of filing the instant revision petition very belatedly for which also they have to be burdened with costs. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice of motion to the respondents so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the suit and also to save the respondents of expenses which they may have to incur in engaging counsel if notice of the revision petition is issued to them. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and the trial Court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the petitioners to lead their remaining evidence at their own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs precedent. The petitioners may take assistance of the Court for summoning any witness, but it shall be no ground to grant them any more opportunity even on the ground of non-service of witness or non- appearance of the witness after service of summons or for any reason whatsoever. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 13.01.2010 A. Kaundal