Jagir Singh vs Avtar Singh and Others (As per amended Memo of Parties)

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated

27.07.2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ferozepur, whereby the evidence of the petitioner-defendant has

been closed by order of the Court. Heard.

Brief facts relevant for disposal of the petition are that the predecessor of the respondents, namely, Sukhwinder Singh filed a suit for permanent

injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant from interfering into the peaceful, lawful and continuous possession of the plaintiff over the land

measuring 21 Kanals 11 Marlas, described in the head note of the plaint. On notice, petitioner-defendant appeared before the trial Court and filed

written statement. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, issues were framed vide order dated 10.09.2010 and the case was fixed for plaintiff''s

evidence. After completing the evidence of the plaintiff, the case was fixed for petitioner/defendant''s evidence. Vide impugned order dated

27.07.2013 (Annexure P/1), the evidence of the petitioner-defendant has been closed by order of the Court. Hence, this revision petition.

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

Through this petition, the petitioner seeks permission for one last effective opportunity to complete his evidence at his 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 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/defendant to complete his evidence at his own risk and responsibility, subject to costs

of Rs. 5000/- to be paid to the respondents-plaintiffs. Witnesses of the petitioner-defendant shall be examined/cross-examined on the same day.

For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 27.07.2013 (Annexure P/1) is set aside. The revision petition is allowed without notice

to the respondents with a view to avoid delay and expenses in view of the nature of the order. Liberty is granted to the respondents to move this

court if they still feel aggrieved against the order.