Pankaj Kumar vs Seema Kumari @ Seema Bhanout

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 04.09.2013 passed by learned District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the evidence of petitioner has been closed by order of the court. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed a petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage on 14.03.2012. Despite availing number of opportunities, petitioner failed to lead evidence and the evidence was closed by order of the court. Hence this revision petition.

Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner was not afforded sufficient opportunity to lead evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be granted one last opportunity to lead his entire evidence.

I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.

Through this petition, the petitioner seeks permission to conclude his evidence in full. 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 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 AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3353, 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 plaintiff/petitioner for leading his entire evidence at his own risk and responsibility, subject to costs. However, shall also be given an opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal, if she so desires.

For the reasons stated above, impugned order is set aside. Petitioner is afforded one opportunity to lead his evidence, subject to costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/-, out of which Rs. 8,000/- shall be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Jalandhar and Rs. 2,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondent.

Disposed of.

This revision has been disposed of without notice to the respondent with a view to avoid delay and expense in view of the nature of the order that has been passed. Liberty is granted to the respondent to move this court if she is aggrieved against the order.