IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5359 of 2009 Date of decision : January 28, 2010 Kapoor Singh ....Petitioner versus Ranbir and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. RA Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sham Partap, Advocate, for respondent no. 1 None for the remaining respondents L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Respondent nos. 7 and 9 are reported to have died. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that for the purpose of this revision petition, it is not necessary to implead their legal representatives. It is pointed out that respondent nos. 2 to 8 are represented in the lower court through respondent no. 1 as their general attorney. It is also pointed out that respondent nos. 1 to 9 are represented in the lower court by a common counsel. Plaintiff Kapoor Singh has filed the instant revision petition assailing order dated 14.10.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Charkhi Dadri, thereby closing plaintiff's evidence by court order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Civil Revision No. 5359 of 2009 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff contended that only plaintiff is to be examined as witness and he could not be examined inadvertently because of change of counsel. It is also pointed out that only three effective opportunities were given to the plaintiff for his evidence and on the third date of hearing, his evidence was closed. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 contended that the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on 16.9.2009 i.e. 2 years and 11 months after the passing of the impugned order. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Under proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party is entitled to three opportunities for his evidence. However, this rule being rule of procedure cannot be applied with rigidity. In the instant case only three effective opportunities were given to the plaintiff-petitioner for his evidence. Keeping in view the same, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is granted another opportunity for his evidence on payment of costs. The petitioner has to be burdened with heavy costs on account of undue delay in filing the instant revision petition. In view of the aforesaid, the revision petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the plaintiff- petitioner to examine himself as witness subject to payment of Rs 5000/- as costs precedent. ( L.N. Mittal ) January 28, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'