L.N. Mittal - (1.) CM No. 11058.CII of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. CR No. 2592 of 2012 Defendant no. 1 has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 16.4.2012, Annexure P/5 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohali, thereby closing evidence of defendant no. 1 -petitioner by court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contended that suit has been filed by respondent no. 1 ? plaintiff in collusion with defendants/respondents no. 2 and 3 and only one opportunity was granted to the petitioner after defendants no. 2 and 3 closed their evidence and even for that one opportunity, defendant no. 1 took Dasti summons of a witness who was, however, not found available and could not be served. Accordingly, counsel for the petitioner prayed that only one more opportunity be granted to the petitioner for its remaining evidence. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer but the same cannot be accepted. Perusal of impugned order of the trial court reveals that even after excluding adjournments sought by counsel for plaintiff for cross-examination of some witnesses of the defendants, trial court granted as many as 23 effective opportunities to the defendants (including the petitioner) for their evidence. Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) stipulates that only three adjournments are to be granted to a party for its evidence. This provision being rule of procedure may be followed with some flexibility and not with rigidity. However, at the same time, this rule cannot be made completely redundant by granting numberless opportunities to a party for its evidence. Delay in disposal of cases is attracting wide criticism and rightly so. To curtail delay, aforesaid provision has been made in CPC for expeditious disposal of the suits. It is, thus, a salutary provision which, although may be used with some flexibility, cannot be given a complete go by. In the instant case, defendants have already been granted over indulgence by the trial court by granting them as many as 23 effective opportunities for their evidence as against three opportunities only stipulated under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC. Consequently, the question of granting any more opportunity to defendant no. 1 ? petitioner for its evidence does not arise.
(3.) CONTENTION of counsel for the petitioner that defendant no. 1 ? petitioner was to lead evidence after defendants no. 2 and 3 had closed their evidence cannot be accepted because the trial court always fixed the case for evidence of all the defendants (including defendant no. 1 ? petitioner) and there is no order of the trial court to depict that defendant no. 1 ? petitioner ever even made any request to the trial court that it will lead its evidence after closing of evidence by defendants no. 2 and 3. Moreover, defendant no. 1 examined its witness DW1 Manoj Madan on 17.12.2010, on 5th opportunity for evidence of defendants whereas defendants no. 2 and 3 closed their evidence on 3.4.2012, on 22nd opportunity for evidence of the defendants. Thus, even before defendants no. 2 and 3 closed their evidence, defendant no. 1 had started leading its evidence and in fact defendant no. 1 commenced its evidence even before defendants no. 2 and 3 commenced producing their evidence. So aforesaid contention cannot be accepted.;