L. N. MITTAL - (1.) PLAINTIFF Sawarn Singh has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filling this revision petition to assail order dated 25.04.2012 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabha thereby closing evidence of the plaintiff petitioner by Court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that examination-in- chief of three witnesses of the plaintiff has already been recorded and cross-examination of one witness out of them has also been recorded. COUNSEL for the petitioner prayed that only one more effective opportunity be granted to the plaintiff for appearance of the remaining CR No.2865 of 2012 two witnesses (whose examination-in-chief has already been recorded) for cross-examination. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer. Perusal of zimni orders of the trial Court as reproduced in the revision petition reveals that the plaintiff was granted 10 effective opportunities for his evidence excluding the date (21.12.2011) on which counsel for defendants prayed for adjournment. 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. However, this provision being of procedural law is required to be followed with some flexibility and not with extreme rigidity. Rules of procedure are handmaids of justice and are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart the same. In the instant case, the trial Court closed the evidence of plaintiff after granting him reasonable number of opportunities. However, since examination-in-chief of two other witnesses (including the plaintiff himself) has already been recorded and only their cross-examination remains to be recorded, it would be appropriate to grant another opportunity to the plaintiff for this purpose on payment of costs because in the absence of cross-examination, even their examination-in-chief cannot be read in evidence. The plaintiff- petitioner is himself suffering by the delay in the disposal of the suit. The defendants/respondents can be compensated by way of costs. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to respondents/defendants so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save the respondents of the expenses they CR No.2865 of 2012 may have to incur in engaging counsel for the revision petition if notice thereof is issued to them.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY the instant revision petition is allowed and the trial Court is directed to grant only one more effective opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner for appearance of his remaining two witnesses (including the plaintiff himself), whose examination-in-chief has already been recorded, for their cross-examination at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as cost precedent. 11th May, 2012;