IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1898 of 2004 Date of decision:11.05.2009 Kailasho ...Petitioner versus Sukhdev Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Sanjeev Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the respondent. ----- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision is a hopeless attempt to challenge the orders which are innocuous and which have no bearing on the merits of the case. The orders impugned were orders of adjournment, which according to the plaintiff, ought not to have been granted because the case was adjourned for production of evidence of the side of third defendant, recorded the statements of the third defendant that he would conclude his evidence, if he was not able to produce such evidence at the next hearing. The Court below still adjourned the case in spite of earlier statement, by imposing costs on the subsequent two hearings, Rs.250/- on 08.03.2004 and Rs.1,000/- on 31.03.2004. Civil Revision No.1898 of 2004 - 2 - 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner objects to these orders on three grounds, namely, the trial Court ought not to have granted an opportunity especially after the third defendant bound himself to produce his entire evidence by his statement on 07.01.2004 but which he did not produce on 08.03.2004 as undertaken by him. The grant of time by the Court below according to him was therefore not justified. His second objection was that after the amended provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, all the documents that a party relies upon ought to have been produced along with the statement and the application filed for leading secondary evidence was not maintainable. Both these objections cannot be taken up in revision especially in a jurisdiction that is supervisory to correct only brazen errors or jurisdictional issues that would vitiate the entire order. The orders granting the adjournment or permitting a party to adduce evidence are not matters which shall fall for consideration by intervention in revision. 3. The third objection is that the order is barred under Order 17 Rule 2. This contention is equally fallacious for Order 17 Rule 2 applied to a case where the entire evidence on one side is available and the opposite party refuses to carry on with the case, and when the Court is empowered to pass a decision on merits. The said provision cannot be invoked in cases where one of the parties fails to appear, when the Court may proceed to dispose of the case in one of the most prescribed under Order 9 Rule 9 or making such orders as it thinks fit. There is no warrant for reading into the provisions of a mandate that the Court shall conclude Civil Revision No.1898 of 2004 - 3 - the evidence on the date when a case is posted for production of evidence. The revision is vexatious and is dismissed with cost of Rs.1,000/- payable to the contesting respondents. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 11.05.2009 sanjeev