PREM CHAND Vs. BANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff Prem Chand since deceased through his legal representatives has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 24.8.2012 Annexure P/1 and order dated 20.7.2010 Annexure P/2, passed by the trial court. Vide order Annexure P/2, evidence of the plaintiff was closed by court order except cross-examination of PW2 which has been recorded subsequently. Vide order Annexure P/1, application Annexure P/3 filed by plaintiff for examining Mr. Anupam Sharma, Advocate as witness has been dismissed.

(2.) I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but the same cannot be accepted. Perusal of zimini orders of the trial court as mentioned in the revision petition reveals that at least 10 effective opportunities were granted to the plaintiff for his evidence before closing the same by court order dated 20.7.2010 (except cross-examination of PW2). According to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC), only three opportunities are required to be granted to a party for its evidence. It is correct that aforesaid provision of CPC being rule of procedure is directory and not mandatory in nature and may be followed with some flexibility and not with extreme rigidity because rules of procedure are handmaids of justice and are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to obstruct the same. However, at the same time, a party cannot be granted infinite or unlimited number of opportunities for its evidence. The purpose of aforesaid provision introduced by amendment of CPC is to curtail the delay in disposal of the suits. It is salutary provision because delay in disposal of cases attracts wide spread criticism and rightly so. Consequently, the aforesaid provision cannot be made futile by granting another opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner in the instant case because he has already been granted more than sufficient number of opportunities by the trial court for his evidence.

(3.) In addition to the aforesaid, even after plaintiff's evidence was closed by court order on 20.7.2010, the plaintiff did not seek immediate redressal against the said order either by challenging the same by filing revision petition in this Court or by moving application in the trial court for examining any other witness. On the other hand, perusal of Annexure P/2 reveals that application Annexure P/3 was moved on 30.11.2011. The said application was thus moved one year four months after order dated 20.7.2010 closing evidence of the plaintiff had been passed by the trial court. Thus, the plaintiff did not pursue his remedy promptly. On the other hand, he has been delaying the matter at every stage. Application Annexure P/3 was moved after inordinately long and unexplained delay.