Counsel's concessions do not bind parties unless related to an issue of law; procedural adherence and timely actions are essential in litigation.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (ORAL)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. By way of the present petition, Petitioner challenges the order dated 21.05.2007 and 03.09.2012. By virtue of order dated 21.05.2007, Joint Registrar had noted the statement of the counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that he would not be cross-examining any of the witness of the Plaintiff on the premise that it was a dispute between the Respondent/Plaintiff herein and Defendant No.1 in the suit.

2. The other order, which is challenged by the Petitioner, is dated 03.09.2012 whereby the evidence of the Petitioner was treated as closed on the ground that the Petitioner had not filed the affidavits as directed by the Court.

3. Mr. Kalra, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner had filed the application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) praying that the evidence of the Petitioner be re- opened and the Petitioner be permitted to lead his evidence and also pray for cross-examining the witnesses of the Plaintiff as well.

4. Learned counsel submits that by virtue of the order dated 15.02.2018, learned Trial Court had, by detailed order dismissed the application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC. Learned counsel further submits that the said dismissal was further challenged before this Court in C.M.(M) 227/2018 and vide order dated 09.03.2018, this Court granted liberty to seek review on the statement of the counsel for the Petitioner. The dismissal of the review application, prayer of which was sought vide order dated 09.03.2018 also apparently dismissed vide order dated 18.08.2022. For ready reference, para 5 of the order dated 15.02.2018 is extracted hereunder:

"5. Perusal of the record of the case reveals that evidence of plaintiff was closed on 25/04/2011 and thereafter the matter was fixed for defendant's evidence on 03/11/2011. Record further shows that thereafter defendants were granted various opportunities including last opportunity to file their affidavits by way of evidence but to no avail and finally on 03/09/2012 the right of defendants to lead evidence was closed. It is pertinent to mention here that defendant no.2 had later on filed an application for recalling of order dated 03/09/2012 and vide order dated 07/03/2013 defendant no.2 was permitted to lead his evidence. No such application was filed by defendant no.1 at that time. The grievance of the defendant no.1 in the said application is that his father was handling the present matter till 2000 and after the death of his father, he did not get in touch with the counsel Sh. D.R. Bhatia, Adv, And that only on 02/09/2017 while going through the old records, it came to the knowledge of defendant no.1 about the case and he had recollected that he had engaged Sh. D.R. Bhatia as his counsel. Record shows that defendant no.1 is a party to the suit since inception of the case and he had filed written statement and it cannot be believed that he was not aware of the proceedings all these years even if it is believed that Defendant No.1 was not in touch with his counsel then only it was Defendant No.1 who is responsible for his negligence and he cannot claim the reopening of the evidence at this stage. Defendant's evidence was closed on 03.09.2012 and arguments have already been head in the present and case is now at the stage of order. I am of the opinion that the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC cannot be us