- (1.) THE present revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.02.2014 whereby evidence of defendant -petitioner has been closed by order of the trial judge. The prayer is for revising the impugned order and for leave to produce witnesses in defence of the suit. Learned counsel has assailed the order. Heard.
(2.) ACCORDING to him, one opportunity ought to have been granted to the defendant to examine his witnesses.
(3.) IT appears from the record that the plaintiff -respondent No.1 instituted a suit for partition of suit property against the respondentsdefendants. After the plaintiff let in and closed his evidence, the defendant -petitioner had availed several opportunities to lead his evidence. On 26.09.2013, no defence witness was in attendance and the case was adjourned to 16.10.2013 for defence evidence subject to grant of last opportunity for the purpose. On 16.10.2013, the defendant failed to produce his witnesses and the case was again adjourned to 07.01.2014 subject to last opportunity which was also rendered futile by nonproduction. On 11.02.2014, the court was left with no option but to close the evidence by order. The court came to the conclusion that petitionerdefendant had availed six effective opportunities including two last opportunities for leading his evidence but had failed to conclude his evidence. I find no infirmity with the orders passed by the court below. There is no scope left for interference or indulgence in revisional jurisdiction. In M/s. Shiv Cotex vs Tirgun Auto Plast P. Limited and others, 2011 4 RCR(Civ) 807the Supreme Court ruled as follows for courts to emulate and to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in the following manner in the matter of granting adjournments: - "16. No litigant has a right to abuse the procedure provided in the CPC. Adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system. It is true that cap on adjournments to a party during the hearing of the suit provided in proviso to Order XVII Rule 1 CPC is not mandatory and in a suitable case, on justifiable cause, the court may grant more than three adjournments to a party for its evidence but ordinarily the cap provided in the proviso to Order XVII Rule 1 CPC should be maintained. When we say 'justifiable cause' what we mean to say is, a cause which is not only 'sufficient cause' as contemplated in sub -rule (1) of Order XVII CPC but a cause which makes the request for adjournment by a party during the hearing of the suit beyond three adjournments unavoidable and sort of a compelling necessity like sudden illness of the litigant or the witness or the lawyer; death in the family of any one of them; natural calamity like floods, earthquake, etc. in the area where any of these persons Kumar Paritosh reside; an accident involving the litigant or the witness or the lawyer on way to the court and such like cause. The list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the absence of the lawyer or his non -availability because of professional work in 9 other court or elsewhere or on the ground of strike call or the change of a lawyer or the continuous illness of the lawyer (the party whom he represents must then make alternative arrangement well in advance) or similar grounds will not justify more than three adjournments to a party during the hearing of the suit. The past conduct of a party in the conduct of the proceedings is an important circumstance which the courts must keep in view whenever a request for adjournment is made. A party to the suit is not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure and pleasure and has no right to determine when the evidence would be let in by it or the matter should be heard. The parties to a suit - whether plaintiff or defendant must cooperate with the court in ensuring the effective work on the date of hearing for which the matter has been fixed. If they don't, they do so at their own peril. Insofar as present case is concerned, if the stakes were high, the plaintiff ought to have been more serious and vigilant in prosecuting the suit and producing its evidence. If despite three opportunities, no evidence was let in by the plaintiff, in our view, it deserved no sympathy in second appeal in exercise of power under Section 100 CPC. We find no justification at all for the High Court in upsetting the concurrent judgment of the courts below. The High Court was clearly in error in giving the plaintiff an opportunity to produce evidence when no justification for that course existed.";