Judicial discretion must balance the need for expeditious trial with fairness to parties, allowing limited opportunities for evidence while preventing indefinite delays.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY VASHISTH , J.

1. Present revision petition has been directed by the petitioner against the order dated 04.10.2023 (P-1), passed by Ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa, whereby, evidence of the petitioner (plaintiff therein), has been closed on account of the fact that despite availing several effective opportunities, petitioner failed to conclude his evidence.

2. Briefly, facts of the case are that plaintiff (petitioner herein) filed a suit for Recovery of Rs. 11,19,843/- against the defendants (respondents herein) in which, notice was issued for 20.05.2020 to defendants. After completion of pleadings, issues were framed on 10.08.2021 by Learned Trial Court and the case was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence for 08.11.2021.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the proceedings conducted before the Learned Trial Court on various dates is represented below chronologically:

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that if one opportunity is granted, subject to the payment of some costs, he undertakes to complete his evidence by producing the witnesses. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that now, the suit proceedings were fixed for 25.10.2023, and now stands adjourned for leading of the defence evidence, which is yet to start. If one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner (plaintiff therein), no loss or prejudice is going to be caused to the defendant(s).

5. Without issuing notice to other parties, as it will not only waste the time of the Court, but unnecessarily put burden on the other parties also towards the costs to be incurred for appearing before this Court, which may further linger on the litigation proceedings, I deem it appropriate to consider the relief, as sought by the petitioner in present revision petition.

6. Counsel for the petitioner also undertakes to conclude his evidence only in one opportunity. Besides this, counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar circumstances, the Coordinate Benches of this Court have already granted opportunities for leading evidence and one such case is Ramu Gupta Vs. Harpreet Kaur and another (CR No.1447 of 2017 (O&M) D/d: 01.03.2017) (Law Finder Doc ID # 906700), and refers to para Nos. 8 to 13 of the said judgment, which are as under:-

“8. It is a settled preposition of law that scope of exercise of judicial discretion to achieve the ends of justice, in furtherance to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is the basic question which deserves consideration in the present case. A limited prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the impugned order dated 30.11.2016, that the petitioner be granted one effective opportunity to lead evidence as adequate opportunities were not granted and his evidence was closed by Court order. On perusal of impugned order, it is found that simply it has been mentioned that the case is pending for defendant's evidence who had already availed five effective opportunities including one last opportunity for leading and concluding its entire evidence but it was not completed. Speedy trial is fundamental right of the litigants and no good ground is made out to linger on the case for evidence of defence and as such the defence evidence was closed by Court order. The learned trial Court ought to have granted one more opportunity to lead evidence and ought not to have passed the order closing the evidence of the plaintiff.

9. In case Joginder Singh and others vs. Smt. Manjit Kaur, 2000 (2) RCR (Civil) 382, this Court has observed as under:-

“3. Should such discretion by the Court can ever be termed as "uncontrolled and un-guided exercise of judicial discretion by the Court? "I have no hesitation in answering the above question in the negative. Certainly, it is not possible for the Court to provide the panacea to all problems arising at different stages of the suit. The Code of Civil Pr