C. R. No. 7144 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 7144 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : January 21, 2010 Sant Kaur and others .... Petitioners Vs. Subhash Chander Midha and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. O. P. Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 314-C of 2009 : Application is allowed and Annexures P-4 to P-16 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : Legal representatives of plaintiff Kashmir Singh (since deceased) have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 28.08.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalalabad, thereby closing evidence of the plaintiff by court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Perusal of the zimni orders of the trial court reveals that the C. R. No. 7144 of 2009 (O&M) 2 petitioners were granted at least 8 effective opportunities for their evidence including at least 3 last opportunities. Consequently, the trial court was left with no option, but to close the evidence of the petitioners by court order. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioners. However, the prayer cannot be accepted. Proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) lays down that only three opportunities are to be provided to a party for his evidence. It is correct that the said provision being rule of procedure may not be applied very strictly or with rigidity. However, at the same time, the provision cannot be violated with impunity and cannot be given a complete go-by. The aforesaid provision has been inserted by amendment to curtail delay in disposal of cases. This salutary object cannot be anulled by granting numberless opportunities to a party for his evidence. In the instant case, the petitioners were granted at least 8 effective opportunities including 3 last opportunities for their evidence. Consequently, no justification is made out for granting any more opportunity for their evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that according to Order 17 Rule 3 CPC, after closing evidence of a party, the case has to be decided forthwith, but it has not been done in the instant case. The contention is completely absurd and misplaced and has to be rejected with the contempt it deserves. If this contention is accepted, it would lead to very absurd consequence. In a given case, the plaintiff may lead his entire evidence, but still may not close his evidence himself and may force the Court to close the evidence of the plaintiff by court order. If the aforesaid contention is accepted, then the court would be obliged to decide the case immediately without affording any opportunity to defendant to lead his evidence. This cannot be the intention of law, nor the law can be interpreted in such a manner. It may also be noticed that on closing evidence of petitioners by C. R. No. 7144 of 2009 (O&M) 3 court order on 28.08.2009, the case was adjourned to 06.10.2009 for evidence of the defendants, but the instant revision petition was not filed by the petitioners immediately after the passing of the impugned order, but was filed on 20.10.2009. After it was returned with some objections by the Registry, the same was re-filed on 02.12.2009. Thus, at every stage, the petitioners are guilty of delay and laches and do not deserve any relief in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. January 21, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE