effective opportunities for his evidence. According to proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only three opportunities are required to be given to a party for its evidence. Being rule of procedure, this provision may not be enforced with extreme rigidity. Some flexibility may be shown. However, at the same time, this provision cannot be frustrated altogether by granting any number of adjournments. There has to be some limit somewhere. It may be added that the aforesaid provision has been introduced by amendment to curtail the delay in disposal of cases, because such delay is inviting widespread criticism for the system and rightly so. Accordingly this salutary provision was made for expeditious disposal of the cases. This provision has to be observed, although may be with some flexibility. Keeping in view the same, in the instant case, in my considered opinion, no further opportunity can be granted to the plaintiff-petitioner for his evidence when he has already been granted 18 effective opportunities for this purpose excluding the dates of hearing on which counsel for defendant-petitioner sought adjournments. Judgments of this Court in the cases of Ram Kishan versus Smt. Sarswati Devi, 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 95; Devinder Sehdev versus Malkiat Singh, 2011(5) RCR (Civil), 891 and Gurvinder Singh versus Government of India and others cited by counsel for the petitioner have no applicability to the instant case because in none of those cases, so many adjournments had been granted to the party before closing its evidence by Court order. So, in those cases, another opportunity was granted on payment of cost, but in the instant case, no justification for granting any further opportunity for the plaintiff's evidence is made out.
