The main legal point established in the judgment is that parties cannot take advantage of their own dalliance or lapses, and the provisions of Order 17 Rule 1 and Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code regarding the number of opportunities for leading evidence must be strictly followed.

Harbans Lal, J.

1. This regular second appeal has been filed by Ram Phal and Anr. plaintiffs/appellant nor setting aside the impugned judgment/degree dated 26.2.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat as well as the judgment/decree dated 28.5.2008 rendered by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellants has strenuously urged that the courts below have gravely erred in rejecting the prayer of the appellants for granting one more opportunity to the plaintiffs/appellants to lead their entire evidence by giving a go by to the doctrine of interest of justice. He further contended that on 25.4.2006 the issues in this case were framed. The case was fixed for 12.6.2006 for evidence of the plaintiffs/appellants. Since no evidence was present on that day, the case was adjourned without any protest from other side to 3.10.2006 and then to 5.1.2007, which was declared as holiday and then it was fixed for 3.5.2007, 20.9.2007, 14.2.2008, 26.2.2008 for evidence of the plaintiffs/ appellants. It was on 26.2.2008 when the plaintiffs/appellants were sitting on the seat of their counsel, their case, was taken up and impugned order closing their evidence was passed by calling in aid the provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 of CPC. He contends that no party should suffer because of the fault of his/her counsel. As such, the courts below ought to have given one more opportunity to the plaintiffs/appellants to lead their evidence. Lastly, he submits that to safeguard the ends of justice, an opportunity may be provided to the plaintiffs/appellants to lead their evidence by mulcting them with reasonable costs in view of the observations made by his Court in re: Pardeep and Anr. v. Kela Devi and Anr. 2006 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 256.

3. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to this submission. In re: Pardeep and Anr. (supra), evidence of the petitioners was closed by order. Feeling aggrieved with the order dated 4.3.2005, they approached this Court for setting aside the said order. The trial was still pending whereas in the present case, trial has been concluded and the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2008 recorded by the learned trial Court has also met failure vide judgment and decree dated 28.5.2008 rendered by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat. Thus, axiomatically the observations made in re: Pardeep and Anr. (supra) have no applicability to the facts of the instant case. In paragraph No. 9 of the judgment dated 26.2.2008, it has been observed by the learned trial Court that several opportunities including three last opportunities were given to the plaintiffs to lead their evidence, but they failed to lead any evidence and it was thereafter, that their evidence was closed by order of the Court. The learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat in his judgment dated 28.5.2008 in paragraph Nos. 17 to 19 has observed as under:

17. The plaintiff-appellants had availed six effective opportunities for their evidence, whereas according to the provisions of Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, they could be given only three opportunities for that purpose. On one date even cost for adjournment was imposed upon them. On three dates, it was clarified that the next date would be the last opportunity. What to talk of leading any other evidence, even none of the plaintiffs came forward in the witness box. There is no material on record which may show that the plaintiffs or their any witness was present on 26.2.2008. Under such circumstances, the learned trial Court was legally justified to close the evidence of the plaintiffs. The conduct of the plaintiffs remained such that they adopted delaying tactics by not producing evidence, therefore, they even do not deserve any discretion for granting them one more opportunity to lead evidence.

18. No other point has been urged.

19. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no il