Deepinder Singh vs Mukesh Kumar and Others

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Present revision petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 19.02.2013 (Annexure P/6) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, whereby the evidence of the petitioner-petitioner has been closed by order of the Court. Heard.

Brief facts for disposal of the petition are that petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the property in dispute, as detailed in the head note through his attorney Harinder Singh. On 19.02.2013, one PW-1 was examined by the petitioner/plaintiff. No other witness was present on that date and the evidence of the petitioner has been closed by Court order. Hence, this revision petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner-plaintiff could not produce evidence due to ill health of his uncle namely Harinder Singh, who is an old patient of diabetes.

Through this petition, the petitioner seeks permission for one last effective opportunity to complete his evidence at his own responsibility. It is correct that proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 CPC lays down that not more than three adjournments shall be granted to a party for its evidence. However, the said provision being rule of procedure has to be held to be directory and not mandatory in nature. This provision has to be applied with some flexibility and not with rigidity or inflexibility. Rules of procedure are handmaid to the administration of justice and are meant to meet the ends of justice and not to thwart or obstruct the same. In Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI), , it has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that in the facts and circumstances of a given case, more than three adjournments can be granted for evidence of a party by imposing punitive cost. In the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if one effective opportunity is given to the petitioner/plaintiff to complete his evidence at his own risk and responsibility, subject to costs of Rs. 5000/- to be paid to the respondents-defendants. Witnesses of the petitioner-plaintiff shall be examined/cross-examined on the same day before the evidence of the defence evidence.

For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 19.02.2013 (Annexure P/6) is set aside. The revision petition is allowed without notice to the respondents with a view to avoid delay and expense in view of the nature of the order. Liberty is granted to the respondents to move this court if they are aggrieved against the order.