Puran Chand alias Raju vs Gopal Krishan and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendant No. 1-Puran Chand alias Raju has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 09.02.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal, thereby closing evidence of the defendants by court order.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused die case file.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that only four opportunities were granted to the defendants for their evidence, as would be evident from orders Annexures P-1 to P-7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that only one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence at own responsibility, on payment of cost

Although proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC lays down that not more than three opportunities should be granted to a party to lead his evidence, yet the aforesaid rule of procedure cannot be said to be inflexible or mandatory. Rules of procedure are handmaids of justice and cannot be used to thwart the ends of justice. In the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence on payment of cost, because otherwise, the impugned order would be very harsh on the petitioner as it would be a case of no evidence led by the defendants.

I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to plaintiff-respondent No. 1 so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the suit and also to save respondent No. 1 of the expenses, he may have to incur in engaging Counsel for the instant revision petition, if notice of the same is issued to him.

In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as cost precedent. The petitioner may take assistance of the Court to summon witnesses, but not more than one opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner, even on the ground of non-service of witnesses or non-appearance of the witnesses inspite of service or for any other reason, whatsoever.