L.N. Mittal, J.@mdashPlaintiffs No. 1 to 3 have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 26.04.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Samana, thereby closing evidence of plaintiffs (petitioners and proforma respondents No. 7 to 10) by court order.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that only one more opportunity may be granted to the plaintiffs to lead their evidence at own responsibility on payment of cost. It is submitted that the plaintiffs'' Counsel in the lower court stated on 19.07.2010 that he has no instructions and it came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs when they changed their Counsel on 04.08.2010 that evidence of the plaintiffs had been closed by court order.
3. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer, but find myself unable to accede to the same. Perusal of the zimni orders, as reproduced in the revision petition reveals that the plaintiffs were granted 12 effective opportunities for their evidence, but in spite thereof, they failed to close their evidence. Consequently, the trial court was left with no option, but to close the evidence of the plaintiffs by court order.
4. In the aforesaid context, it is significant to notice that delay in disposal of the cases is attracting widespread criticism and rightly so. In order to curb this evil, by amendment, provision has been made in Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC stipulating that more than three adjournments shall not be granted to a party for its evidence. It is correct that the said provision being rule of procedure may not be construed very strictly and may not be applied rigidly. However, at the same time, the said rule also cannot be observed in complete breach. It is a very salutory provision and the very purpose of introducing this provision would be defeated completely if the plaintiffs, after having availed of 12 effective opportunities for their evidence, are granted one more opportunity for their evidence. The trial court has already granted more than the required number of opportunities. The plaintiffs cannot shift the blame to their Counsel in the trial court, when the plaintiffs themselves did not lead evidence. No case for granting further opportunity to the plaintiffs for their evidence is made out. The impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or lack of jurisdiction or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. The revision petition is found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
