Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral)
Present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 02.12.2013 (Annexure P/4) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Moga, whereby the evidence of the petitioner has been closed by order of the Court.
Heard.
Brief facts relevant for disposal of the revision petition are that petitioner filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which has been allowed vide ex-parte order dated 02.03.2012 (Annexure P/1). Thereafter, the respondent filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree alleging that neither the petitioner had given correct address of the respondent in the divorce petition nor any notice was ever served upon her. On notice, petitioner appeared and filed reply to the application. On 02.12.2013 the evidence of the petitioner has been closed by Court order as no evidence of the petitioner was present. Hence, this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Through this revision, the petitioner seeks permission for one last effective opportunity to complete his evidence at his own responsibility. It is correct that proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 CPC lays down that not more than three adjournments shall be granted to a party for its evidence. However, the said provision being rule of procedure has to be held to be directory and not mandatory in nature. This provision has to be applied with some flexibility and not with rigidity or inflexibility. Rules of procedure are handmaid to the administration of justice and are meant to meet the ends of justice and not to thwart or obstruct the same. In Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3353, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the facts and circumstances of a given case, more than three adjournments can be granted for evidence of a party by imposing punitive cost. In the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if one effective opportunity is given to the petitioner to complete his evidence at his own risk and responsibility, subject to costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Moga. However, the petitioner can take the assistance of the trial Court in order to get the witnesses summoned. Ordered accordingly.
For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 02.12.2013 (Annexure P/4) is set aside. The revision petition is disposed of without notice to the respondent with a view to avoid delay and expense in view of the nature of the order.
Liberty is granted to the respondent to move this court if she is aggrieved against the order.