Sardool Singh vs Ranjit Singh And Another on 16 September, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sardool Singh vs Ranjit Singh And Another on 16 September, 2010

Bench: L. N. Mittal

                           C. R. No. 5980 of 2010                            1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.


                           Case No. : C. R. No. 5980 of 2010
                           Date of Decision : September 16, 2010



                Sardool Singh                          ....   Petitioner
                                    Vs.
                Ranjit Singh and another               ....   Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

                           *    *   *

Present :      Mr. Pravindra Singh, Advocate
               for the petitioner.

                           *    *   *

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

Defendant Sardool Singh has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge order dated 10.08.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal (Annexure P-1), thereby closing evidence of the defendant-petitioner by court order.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that only one more C. R. No. 5980 of 2010 2 opportunity may be granted to the defendant-petitioner to lead his remaining evidence at own responsibility on payment of cost.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the defendant- petitioner was granted six effective opportunities in all for his 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 rule of procedure is directory and not mandatory. The same has to be followed with some flexibility and not with extreme rigidity. In the circumstances of the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner for his evidence on payment of cost.

I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to the respondents so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the suit and to save the respondents of the expenses, which they may have to incur in engaging counsel for the revision petition, if notice thereof is issued to them.

For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and trial court is directed to grant only one more opportunity to the petitioner for his remaining evidence at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost precedent. The petitioners may take C. R. No. 5980 of 2010 3 assistance of the Court for summoning evidence. However, not more than one opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner for his evidence, even on the ground of non-service of any witness or non-appearance of any witness in spite of service or on any other ground, whatsoever.

September 16, 2010                                 ( L. N. MITTAL )
monika                                                   JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court