Parveen Nayyar vs Vikram Dhanda

L.N. Mittal, J.

CM No. 13355-CII of 2012

The application is allowed and zimni orders of the trial Court (Annexure P-2 collectively) are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

CR No. 2202 of 2012

Plaintiff has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 02.03.2012 (Annexure P- 1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh thereby closing evidence of plaintiff-petitioner by Court order.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that only one more opportunity may be granted to the plaintiff petitioner for his remaining evidence at own responsibility.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer, but find myself unable to accept the same. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the plaintiff was granted as many as 21 effective opportunities including many last opportunities for his evidence. Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC stipulates that only three opportunities are to be granted to a party for its evidence. The said rule being rule of procedure may be followed with some flexibility and not with extreme rigidity. However, at the same time, the said rule cannot be made redundant by granting large number of adjournments to a party for its evidence. This rule has been enacted to expedite the disposal of cases. Delay in disposal of cases is attracting widespread criticism and rightly so. In the instant case the plaintiff was granted as many as 21 effective opportunities for his evidence as against the statutory provision of three opportunities only.

It may be mentioned that the suid was filed in the year 2004 i.e. almost 8 years before evidence of the plaintiff was closed by Court order. Even issues were framed in the case on 18.01.2007 i.e. more than five years before evidence of the plaintiff was closed by Court order.

It is also significant to notice that on 16.04.2012 counsel for the petitioner after arguing for some time prayed for adjournment to place on record all zimni orders of the trial Court since the date of framing of issues till passing of impugned order. However, even after seeking two adjournments, all the aforesaid zimni orders of the trial Court have not been placed on record. On the contrary, zimni orders since 20.07.2009 only have been placed on record although the issues had been framed on 18.01.2007 and thus zimni orders of the trial Court for two and half years since January, 2007 to July, 2009 have not been produced. During this period also, the plaintiff must have been granted many adjournments for his evidence. Even zimni orders of the trial Court since 20.07.2009 till passing of impugned order reveal that plaintiff was granted 16 effective opportunities for his evidence. Trial Court has observed in impugned order that the plaintiff was granted 21 effective opportunities for his evidence. In these circumstances, no justification for granting any further adjournment to the plaintiff-petitioner for his remaining evidence is made out. The revision petition is completely meritless. 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 power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On the contrary, the trial Court has already granted over indulgence to the plaintiff-petitioner by granting as many as 21 effective opportunities for his evidence and, therefore, no more opportunity can be granted to the plaintiff-petitioner for his remaining evidence. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.