SWATANTER KUMAR,J - (1.) THIS is an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Sections 114 and 151 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for the review of the order/judgment dated 9.2.2000 passed by this Court. Vide order dated 29.10.1999 the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula had closed the evidence of the defendant in the suit while exercising its powers under the provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code. It was noticed in the said order that the applicant had obtained number of opportunities including last opportunity on several occasions and had failed to take any steps to summon the witnesses and to lead evidence. This order was challenged in Civil Revision No. 5647 of 1999 which, after hearing learned counsel for the parties at some length was dismissed vide a detailed judgment of this Court dated 9.2.2000.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has filed this review petition and contends that this Court has not correctly applied the law settled by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Massan Devi and others v. Union of India and another, 1994 PLJ 110 : 1994(2) RRR 1 (P&H)(DB). A bare reading of the judgement shows that the application of the said principle was discussed by the Court in the judgment dated 9.2.2000. However, it will be very difficult to accept that if a judgment is not appreciated as construed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, an application for review could be maintainable. Leaving that apart, I would even further explain that the judgment in Massan Devi's case (supra) does not lay down that provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 CPC are mandatory and the trial Court has no option but to pronounce the judgment forthwith if it passes an order under the provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 CPC. The following lines from the judgment of the Division Bench can be safely referred at this stage to clarify the doubt: "Even otherwise it would transpire that the rule is permissive and not mandatory as is evident from the words 'the Court may proceed'. The stringent provisions of rule are not desired to be applied particularly when it may amount to non-suiting a party who had preferred claim with respect to huge property allegedly acquired under the provisions of the Act."
(3.) I am of the considered view that the learned trial Court had exercised its judicial discretion and after closing the evidence of the defendant had fixed the case for arguments to consider the evidence led by the plaintiff. The said order suffered from no error of jurisdiction. For the reasons afore-stated I have no hesitation in dismissing this review application also. Petition dismissed.;