Ram Singh vs Jeet Singh and Others

Paramjeet Singh, J.—Instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 11.01.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Barnala whereby the evidence of petitioner-defendant no. 3 has been closed by court order. Succinctly stated, the facts for disposal of the present petition are that respondent no. 1-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant no. 3 and respondents no. 2 to 9 from interfering in his peaceful possession in the suit land measuring 3 marlas. On pleadings of parties, learned trial Court framed the issues and learned counsel for respondent no. 1-plaintiff closed the evidence vide his separate statement dated 11.02.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner and other defendants were offered to lead their evidence, however, the same could not be concluded and ultimately, the evidence of petitioner along with others was closed by court order vide impugned order dated 11.01.2003 (Annexure P-1).

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that one effective opportunity may be given to the petitioner for producing the entire evidence which will not prejudice the rights of respondent no. 1-plaintiff, rather the matter will be adjudicated properly.

Learned counsel for respondent no. 1, on the other hand, contended that after availing numerous opportunities by the petitioner and others, their evidence was rightly closed by court order vide impugned order dated 11.01.2013. Now the proceedings are unnecessarily being delayed by the petitioner. The respondent no. 1 is unnecessarily being harassed on account of delay caused by the petitioner. There is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties.

Through this petition, the petitioner seeks permission to produce the evidence. 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 no. 3 for producing his evidence at his own risk and responsibility, subject to costs of Rs. 5,000/-, to be paid to respondents no. 1-plaintiff. However, respondent no. 1-plaintiff shall also be given an effective opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal, if he so desire. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 11.01.2013 (Annexure P-1) is set aside. The revision petition is allowed in the aforementioned terms.