Gurdip Singh and Another vs Gurdip Kaur and Others

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 25.11.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, whereby evidence of the petitioners-defendants has been closed by court order. Brief facts relevant for disposal of the petition are that respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 02.12.1996. On notice, petitioners-defendants appeared before the trial Court and filed written statement. On completion of evidence of the respondents/plaintiffs, the case was fixed for petitioners/defendants'' evidence. Vide impugned order dated 25.11.2013, the evidence of the petitioners-defendants has been closed by order of the Court. Hence, this revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if one opportunity is granted, the petitioners would conclude their entire evidence.

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

Through this petition, the petitioners seek permission for one last effective opportunity to complete their evidence at their own risk and 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 leading 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 handmaidens 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 petitioners/defendants to complete their evidence at their own risk and responsibility, subject to costs of Rs. 6,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Jalandhar. Witnesses of the petitioners-defendants shall be examined/cross-examined on the same day. Ordered accordingly.

For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 25.11.2013 is set aside. The revision petition is disposed of without notice to the respondents with a view to avoid delay and expenses in view of the nature of the impugned order. Liberty is granted to the respondents to move this court if they feel aggrieved against this order.