(1.) The application is allowed and zimini orders of the trial Court Annexure P-2 collectively are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case.
(2.) Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 3/4/2010 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur thereby closing evidence of defendants (petitioners and proforma respondent No.2) by Court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners prays that only one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioners for their remaining evidence at own responsibility, on payment of costs. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer. Perusal of the zimini orders of the Trial Court reveals that defendants were granted 9 to 10 effective opportunities for their 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. However, the said provision being the rule of procedure has to be followed with some flexibility and not with extreme rigidity. In the instant case, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are minors. On 16.10.2009, three witnesses of the defendants were present. Examination-in-chief of two of the said witnesses was recorded and cross-examination was deferred on the request of opposite counsel. The third witness (an Official) produced the summoned record. On 26.11.2009, two witnesses of the defendants were present for cross-examination. One of them was cross-examined whereas other was cross-examined partly and further cross-examination was deferred on the request of opposite counsel. Accordingly, keeping in view all the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if another opportunity is granted to the petitioners for their evidence at own responsibility, on payment of heavy costs. The petitioner has to be burdened with heavy costs because they were granted sufficient opportunities by the trial Court and also because the instant revision petition has been filed very belatedly i.e more than 4 . months after the passing of the impugned order.