C. R. No. 3709 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 3709 of 2009 Date of Decision : May 28, 2010 Vijay Pal Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Parsin Kaur and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. P. S. Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Rangi, Advocate with Mr. Jag Nahar Singh, Advocate for respondent no.1. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant no.1 Vijay Pal Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing order dated 10.12.2008 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malout, thereby closing evidence of the defendants (petitioner and proforma respondent no.2) by court order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that only one more C. R. No. 3709 of 2009 2 opportunity may be granted to the defendants for the remaining evidence at own responsibility, on payment of cost. Perusal of the zimni orders reproduced in the instant revision petition reveals that the defendants availed of five opportunities for their evidence and then the case was adjourned to 22.10.2008 for their evidence on payment of Rs.1,000/- as cost and last opportunity was granted. On 22.10.2008, three witnesses of the defendants came present and their examination-in-chief was recorded. However, their cross-examination was deferred on the request of counsel for the plaintiff. The case was adjourned to 10.12.2008, on which date neither the aforesaid three witnesses were present for their cross-examination nor any other witness of defendants was present. Accordingly, on 10.12.2008, the trial court vide impugned order dated 10.12.2008 (Annexure P-2), closed the evidence of the defendants by court order. According to proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only three opportunities are required to be granted to a party for its evidence. However, the said provision being rule of procedure, has to be followed with some flexibility and not with extreme rigidity or inflexibility. Rules of procedures are hand maids of justice and are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to obstruct or thwart the same. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be served if only one more opportunity is granted to the C. R. No. 3709 of 2009 3 defendants for their evidence at own responsibility on payment of cost. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the defendants to lead their evidence at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost precedent. The defendants may take assistance of the Court for summoning their evidence, but not more than one opportunity shall be granted to the defendants for their evidence even on the ground of non-service of any witness or non-appearance of any witness inspite of service, or for any other reason whatsoever. May 28, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE