AMARJIT SINGH Vs. SH. KULTAR SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No, 4681 -CII of 2012

(2.) DEFENDANT No. 9 -Amarjit Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure P -1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar thereby closing evidence of defendants No. 8 to 10 by Court order. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner reiterated that only three opportunities were granted to defendants No. 8 to 10 for their evidence. This contention is factually incorrect and completely unsustainable. Perusal of zimni orders of the trial Court reveals that after evidence of plaintiff was closed on 06.11.2007 the case was adjourned to 14.01.2008 for evidence of all the defendants. Perusal of zimni orders of the trial Court further reveals that in all, eleven effective opportunities have been granted to the defendants for their evidence. Counsel for the petitioner counted the number of opportunities given after defendants No. 1 to 3 were proceeded ex parte whereas defendants No. 4 to 7 were already ex parte. However, earlier opportunities were also for evidence of all the defendants including defendants No. 8 to 10. The case was always fixed for evidence of all the defendants. Defendants No. 8 to 10 never brought any evidence on any dale of hearing. Consequently trial Court was left with no option but to close evidence of defendants No. 8 to 10 after granting as many as eleven effective opportunities although 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. It is correct that this provision being rule of procedure is required to be followed with some flexibility and not with extreme rigidity. However, at the same time, this salutary provision, which has been introduced to curtail the widely criticized delay in disposal of cases, cannot be given a complete go -by by granting indefinite number of adjournments. There has to be some limit somewhere. Granting of eleven effective opportunities to the defendants for their evidence in stead of three opportunities stipulated by law is more than sufficient and, therefore, no further indulgence is required at the hands of this Court. Impugned order of the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or illegal or suffering from any jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of Constitution of India.