L.N. MITTAL - (1.) CM No.9969-CII of 2012 The application is allowed and Annexed zimni orders of the trial Court (Annexure P-5 collectively) are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. CR No.1599 of 2012
(2.) PLAINTIFF Mewa Devi has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 15.11.2011 Annexure P-4 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar thereby closing evidence of plaintiff-petitioner by Court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the plaintiff-petitioner for her evidence. However, the prayer cannot be accepted. Perusal of zimni orders of the trial Court Annexure P-5 and also some of the orders reproduced in the revision petition reveals that the plaintiff-petitioner has been granted at least 13 effective opportunities for her evidence. According to proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only three opportunities are required to be granted to a party for its evidence. Being rule of procedure, the said provision may be followed with some flexibility and not with extreme rigidity. However, at the same time, the said rule cannot be given a complete go by. The said rule has been enacted for expeditious disposal of suits. Delay in disposal of cases is attracting widespread criticism and rightly so. To curtail the delay, this provision has been enacted by amendment Act of 1999 effective from 01.07.2002. This is a salutary provision introduced by amendment for expeditious disposal of the suits. Some liberal approach may be adopted while following this provision, but in the instant case, the trial Court has already granted over indulgence to the plaintiff by granting her 13 effective opportunities for her evidence. Consequently no justification for granting any further opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner her for evidence is made out.
(3.) IT may be mentioned that the suit is of the year 1998 i.e. almost 14 years old. IT may also be mentioned that even the instant revision petition was not filed promptly by the plaintiff-petitioner but was filed on 13.03.2012 i.e. almost four months after the passing of the impugned order by the trial Court. IT depicts that the plaintiff-petitioner is not serious in prosecuting her remedy.;