Civil Revision No. 6788 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6788 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 7th, 2011 Shyam Pal Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus Bimla Sharma and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate, for the petitioners. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. Om Parkash Singh Yadav, plaintiff had brought a suit for declaration and possession. In the said suit, fixed for 9.11.2010 for evidence of the plaintiff, no evidence of the plaintiff was present despite last opportunity. Learned trial court found from the record that the plaintiff had availed three effective opportunities as per Order 17 Rule 3 CPC and despite that, he had failed to conclude the evidence. Learned trial court then noticed the request of the plaintiff for one more adjournment for leading his evidence. Commenting that there is no justification for adjournment of the case for plaintiff's evidence, the request of the plaintiff was declined and the plaintiff's evidence was closed by the court's order. The case was then adjourned to 8.1.2011 for defendants' evidence. The plaintiff then made an application for recall of this order, which has been dismissed vide order dated 3.10.2011. The Civil Revision No. 6788 of 2011 2 .. plaintiff has, therefore, brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the aforesaid orders. I have heard Mr. Sanjay Vij, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record carefully. It is a case where plaintiff as well as defendants appeared before learned trial court in person on 9.11.2010. It has been mentioned in the grounds of revision that counsel for the plaintiff had come to Chandigarh to discuss with Hon`ble the Chief Justice of this court the ways of withdrawal of the suspension of work observed by the Advocates in the courts at Gurgaon. When the counsel for the parties were not appearing in the court, the plaintiff was having no legal advice with him and he was not in a position to lead his evidence. The plaintiff had come in these circumstances before the trial court and made a request for giving one more opportunity to lead his evidence. The circumstances on the record clearly made it necessary for the court to have granted one more opportunity to the plaintiff to lead his evidence. Rules of procedure are not to be taken as oppressive, working counter to the interest of justice. They are to sub-serve the cause of justice. In the circumstances of this case, the interest of justice required grant of one more opportunity. The application for recall of the order has been dismissed for the reason that the court had no power to recall its order. The circumstances listed above clearly show that it is a case of hardship, where the plaintiff was not at fault. He deserved one more Civil Revision No. 6788 of 2011 3 .. opportunity to produce his evidence. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set-aside directing learned trial court to grant one more opportunity to the plaintiff to produce his evidence at his responsibility. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE November 7th, 2011 som