The court reaffirmed the principle that parties must diligently prosecute their cases and that undue adjournments harm the justice system.

JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

The present revision petition assails the order dated 22.08.2017 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana, vide which the evidence of the petitioners/plaintiffs was closed. Challenge has also been laid to the order dated 16.07.2018 vide which the application (Annexure P-4) for recalling the order dated 22.08.2017 was dismissed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the revision petition, are that the petitioners/plaintiffs instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.5,90,320/- against the respondents/defendants. During the course of the trial, vide order dated 22.08.2017, the trial Court permitted the petitioners/plaintiffs to cross-examine PW-2 Amrik Singh on 19.09.2017 and closed the remaining evidence. An application for reopening the evidence by recalling the said order was filed which was dismissed vide order dated 16.07.2018 leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously urged that the impugned orders are not sustainable. It has been submitted that despite having furnished a list of witnesses and having deposited requisite charges for summoning of the witnesses mentioned in the list, summons were not issued by the trial Court and evidence of the petitioners/plaintiffs was closed. He submits that the petitioners/plaintiffs be given another opportunity to lead and conclude their evidence.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned orders. He has referred to the interlocutory orders passed during the course of the trial. Reference has also been made to the other documents placed on record and it has been submitted that the trial Court did not commit any illegality in closing the evidence of the petitioners/plaintiffs, for, even after having availed innumerable opportunities, the petitioners/plaintiffs did not conclude their evidence. In support of his contentions learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court of India in M/s Shiv Cotex Vs. Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd. And others, 2011 (4) RCR (Civil) 807 and judgments of this Court in Gian Singh Vs. Assistant Registrar Co-op Societies, Dasuya and another, 2010(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1748, Ranga Singh Vs. Teja Singh, 2017(5) RCR (Civil) 200 and Balkar Singh Vs. Didar Singh, 2016(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2492.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. The suit was instituted in 2015. Evidence started in August 2015 and the petitioners/plaintiffs availed more than 20 opportunities to lead and conclude their evidence. On 22.08.2017, the following order was passed:-

'No PW come present. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff filed an application for adjournment of the case by stating that witness Amrik Singh is ill along with his medical certificate. Heard and allowed now to come up for cross of PW2 Amrik Singh on 19.09.2017 and remaining evidence of the plaintiff is closed by order.'

8. Prior to this, on 20.02.2017, learned counsel representing the petitioners/plaintiffs had given a statement before the trial Court that he would conclude his entire evidence on the next date of hearing failing which the evidence be deemed to be closed. Having suffered this statement, five more opportunities were availed, but evidence was not concluded. Eventually, on 22.08.2017, when an adjournment was sought for cross-examination of PW-Amrik Singh, the trial Court granted the same but closed the remaining evidence. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court did not commit any illegality in doing so.

9. Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') deals with adjournments and states that on sufficient cause being shown, the Court may, at any stage of the suit, grant adjournment for reasons to be recorded in writing provided no such adjournment should be granted more than three times to a party. The legis