M/s. Hari Om Industries vs Market Committee Moga and Another

L. N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiff, by filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has assailed order dated 01.08.2013 Annexure P-2 passed by the trial Court thereby closing evidence of plaintiff-petitioner by Court order. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner prayed that only one more opportunity may be granted to the plaintiff-petitioner for its remaining evidence at its own responsibility because even the plaintiff''s proprietor has not yet been examined as witness.

I have carefully considered the matter. Perusal of the zimni orders of the trial Court (Annexure P-1 collectively) reveals that the plaintiff-petitioner has been granted 13 to 14 effective opportunities for its evidence. 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. It is correct that the said provision being rule of procedure is directory and not mandatory and may be followed with some flexibility and not with extreme rigidity. However, at the same time, this provision has been introduced to curtail delay in the disposal of cases because delay in disposal of cases is attracting widespread criticism and rightly so. It is, therefore, a salutary provision to curtail the delay in disposal of cases which is the bane of our system of administration of justice. Consequently this salutary provision cannot be defeated and made completely redundant by granting unlimited and infinite number of opportunities to a party for its evidence.

In the instant case, as noticed hereinbefore, the plaintiff has been granted at least 13 effective opportunities for its evidence. Consequently, the plaintiff does not deserve any more indulgence by granting another opportunity to it for its evidence. In fact, the trial Court has already granted over indulgence to the plaintiff by granting as many as 13-14 opportunities to it for its evidence. If plaintiff''s proprietor has not appeared in the witness box in spite of so many opportunities, the plaintiff has to blame itself for the situation in which it finds itself. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that evidence of the plaintiff has been rightly closed by the trial Court by Court order. There is no infirmity, much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned order of the trial Court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.