Narain Singh and others vs Bhim Singh and others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Legal representatives of Chameli plaintiff since deceased have filed the instant revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 21.11.2011 Annexure P/5 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani thereby closing evidence of plaintiff by court order.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.

Perusal of the case file reveals that in all seven effective opportunities have been granted to the plaintiff for her evidence. According to proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, three adjournments are required to be granted to a party for its evidence. However, this provision being of procedural law is applied with some flexibility and not with extreme rigidity because rules of procedure are handmaids of justice and are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart the same. Keeping in view the same, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if one more opportunity for evidence is granted to the petitioners on payment of costs. Petitioners have to be subjected to heavy costs because even the instant revision petition was not filed promptly.

I intend to dispose of this revision petition without issuing notice to defendants/respondents no. 1 to 4 so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the suit and also to save them of the expenses they may have to incur for engaging counsel for the revision petition if notice thereof is issued to them.

Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to give only one more effective opportunity to the petitioners for their evidence at own responsibility subject to payment of Rs 5000/- as costs precedent.