Naresh Kumar vs Parminder Kumar and Others

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 29.08.2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, whereby evidence of the petitioner-defendant has been closed by court order. Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the examination in chief of the plaintiff was done on 23.04.2011 and his cross examination was deferred. On 23.08.2011, he was partly cross examined and his cross examination was deferred to 03.09.2011. In the meantime, application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by Jagtar Singh, Randhir and Lakhwinder Singh. Thereafter the case remained pending for decision of the said application. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner as well as his counsel were under the impression that the case is still for pronouncing the order on application. On 05.09.2013, when the petitioner along with his counsel appeared in the Court after lunch, then he came to know that application has already been dismissed on 03.08.2013 and evidence of the petitioner has also been closed on 29.08.2013. From the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that since petitioner was under the mistaken impression that application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is pending, therefore, the petitioner could not lead his evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that one last opportunity may be given to the petitioner to produce his remaining evidence.

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. 10,000/- to be paid to the respondents-plaintiffs. The petitioner is directed to lead evidence on the date to be fixed by the trial Court at his own risk and responsibility.

For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 29.08.2013 (Annexure P/1) 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 order. Liberty is granted to the respondents to move this court if they still feel aggrieved against the order.