opportunity may be granted to the plaintiffs for their remaining evidence at own responsibility and on payment of costs. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer. Perusal of the zimni orders of the trial court as shown by learned counsel for the petitioners reveals that the trial court granted seven effective opportunities to the plaintiffs/petitioners for their evidence. As per proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only three opportunities are required to be given to a party. However, the said provision being rule of procedure is directory in nature and not mandatory. The same has to be followed with some flexibility and not with extreme rigidity. At the same time the said provision cannot be ignored because this is a salutary provision to curtail delay in the disposal of the cases. Having said so, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that ends of justice require that another opportunity be granted to the petitioners for their remaining evidence at own responsibility. The petitioners have to be burdened with heavy costs because the instant revision petition has also been filed after delay of almost eight months.
