The main legal point established in the judgment is that adjournments granted to a party must be justified under Proviso (h) of Rule 14 ORDER 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, and failure to produce witnesses despite multiple opportunities can lead to the closure of evidence.

1. - This Revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Munsif, Deedwana dated December 20, 1993 by which the evidence of the defendant-Petitioner has been closed. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.

2. In the year 1986 the plaintiff non-Petitioners filed a suit for cancellation of a document and injunction. On March 16, 1993, the plaintiffs closed their evidence and April 14, 1993 was fixed for defendant's evidence. till August 23, 1993, the defendant examined 7 witnesses. Therefore, he was granted adjournments on several dates of payment of costs to produce his meaning witnesses. On his failure to do so, his evidence was closed by the impugned order dated December 20, 1993.

3. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the defendant Petitioner that the suit was filed in the year 1986, the plaintiffs themselves took innumerable adjournments to produce their witnesses, they closed their evidence as late as on March 16, 1993 after about 7 years and the learned trial Court was not at all justified to close the defendant's evidence on December 20. 1993. He further contended that during the period from March 16, 1993 to December 20, 1993 the case was adjourned at the instance of the plaintiffs, due to the strike of the lawyers, non receipt of the record, for the disposal of the applications and on account of absence of material witness i.e. Tehsildar, Deedwana. He lastly contended that the defendant was not given sufficient opportunity to produce his evidence.

4. There is no substance in the revision petition. During the arguments, the learned Counsel for the defendant-Petitioner showed certified copies of the order-sheets of the case from March 16, 1993 to December 20, 1993. Certified copy of no earlier order-sheet was shown it cannot, therefore be said when the defendant himself filed Written-statement, when issued were framed and how many adjournments were sought and granted to the plaintiffs. It is clear from the certified copies of the order-sheets shown that on 27.5.93, 31.7.93, 6.8.93 16.8.93 and 23.8.93 the defendants produced 1, 31, 1 and 1 witnesses respectively. There is nothing on the record to indicate as to what prevented the defendant to produce his all the witnesses. Fixing of five dates for evidence for a party it is itself more than sufficient. In any view of the matter it cannot be said that the trial Court erred in closing the evidence. Proviso (h) of Rule 14ORDER17 of the Civil Procedure Code runs as under :

"(b) No adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party."

5. The learned Counsel for the defendant-Petitioner was repeatedly requested, to disclose any circumstance which was beyond the control of the defendant on account of which the remaining witnesses were not produced on any of the aforesaid dates, namely, 27.5.93, 31.7.93, 6.8.93, 16.8.93 and 23.8.93. It may also be noted that besides these dates 8.7.93, 26.7.93, 10.8.93, 26.8.93 and 30.11.93 were also fixed in the case for the defendant's evidence and adjournments were granted on these dates on the request of the defendant himself. As a matter of fact the trial Court has acted with material irregularity and illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction in granting the aforesaid adjournments. This the main reason for the delayed disposal of cases and their huge accumulation in the Courts.

6. A few dates were fixed in the case for defendant's evidence but the record requisitioned at his instance was not received and as such the case was adjourned. This shows that the trial Court did not comply with the Circular No. 26/Estt. dated November 28, 1990 issued by this Court. Its relevant portions run as under:-xx xx xx xx xx

7. If this circular would have been complied with, adjournments granted on account of the non-receipt of the record could have been avoided.Accordingly, the Revision petition is summaril