Surjit Singh vs Jagroop alias Jaggu and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Surjit Singh plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 07.06.2010 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samana, thereby closing evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner by court order.

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

Learned Counsel for the petitioner prays that only two more opportunities may be granted to the plaintiff-petitioner for leading his remaining evidence, on payment of cost.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find myself unable to accede to the aforesaid prayer made by learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that 12 opportunities were granted to the petitioner for his evidence. Perusal of the zimni orders of the trial court, reproduced in paragraph 7 of the revision petition, reveals that in fact, 13 opportunities were granted to the plaintiff-petitioner for his evidence. On one date of hearing, two witnesses of the plaintiff-petitioner, who were present, could not be examined on request made by learned Counsel for the opposite party and on another date of hearing, one witness of the plaintiff, who was present, was partly examined and his further cross-examination was deferred as court time was over. Even excluding these two opportunities, plaintiff-petitioner availed of 11 effective opportunities for his evidence, but failed to conclude the same. In these circumstances, no justification is made out for granting any further opportunity to plaintiff-petitioner for his remaining evidence.

It may be added that according to proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC (in short - CPC), only three opportunities are required to be given to a party for its evidence. This provision has been inserted by amendment to curtail the delay in disposal of suits as such delay is attracting widespread criticism from all stake holders and other quarters and rightly so. It is true that the aforesaid provision being rule of procedure may not be enforced with complete rigidity or inflexibility. However, even after allowing some flexibility in the enforcement of the provision, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief in the instant revision petition because he has already been granted at least 11 effective opportunities for his evidence. The aforesaid salutary provision cannot be made redundant by granting further indulgence in the instant case. The trial court has already granted much more than the required number of reasonable opportunities for the evidence of the plaintiff. Even if the aforesaid provision is excluded from consideration altogether, there has to be some limit to the number of adjournments to be granted to a party for its evidence. In the instant case, the said limit has already been exceeded and rather crossed by the plaintiff.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. There is no infirmity, much less illegality or perversity in the impugned order of the trial court. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.