Mahender Kumar Vs Anju Jain

Paramjeet Singh, J.@mdashInstant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 24.09.2013 (Annexure P/3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul, whereby evidence of the petitioner-defendant has been closed by court order. Brief facts relevant for disposal of the petition are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment from the property/shop, described in the head note of the plaint. On notice, petitioner-defendant appeared before the trial Court and filed written statement. The respondent-plaintiff produced her entire evidence to prove the suit and the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff has been closed on 28.09.2012. On completion of evidence of the plaintiff, the case was fixed for petitioner/defendant''s evidence. Vide impugned order dated 24.09.2013 (Annexure P/3), the evidence of the petitioner-defendant has been closed by order of the Court. Hence, this revision petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one DW Radhey Shyam official of electricity department appeared on 16.05.2013 but he did not bring the record. Thereafter he did not appear as he was transferred. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner-defendant wants to examine concerned Clerk of DHBVNL, Narnaul to prove the electricity connection, Saket Kumar Aggarwal son of Chetan lal, resident of Singhana Road, Narnaul, who is earlier owner of shop in question and may also examine some other witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if one opportunity is granted, the petitioner would examine the above named witnesses in support of his case.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. Through this petition, the petitioner seeks permission for one last effective opportunity to complete his evidence at his own risk and responsibility. 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 handmaidens 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 to complete his evidence at his own risk and responsibility, subject to costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 8,000/- to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority, Haryana and Rs. 2,000/- to be paid to the respondent-plaintiff). Petitioner will be at liberty to seek the assistance of trial Court in summoning the official witnesses. Witnesses of the petitioner-defendant shall be examined/cross-examined on the same day.

5. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 24.09.2013 (Annexure P/3) is set aside. The revision petition is disposed of without notice to the respondent with a view to avoid delay and expenses in view of the nature of the impugned order. Liberty is granted to the respondent to move this court if she feels aggrieved against this order.