JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - C. M. No. 25573-C-II of 2012 : Application is allowed and annexed affidavit containing zimni orders of the trial court is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : 1. In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, defendants no.1, 2 and 5 have assailed order dated 19.09.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial court, thereby closing evidence of the defendants-petitioners by court order. 2. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. 3. Counsel for the petitioners prayed that only one more opportunity may be granted to the petitioners for their evidence. 4. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer, but the same cannot be accepted. 5. Perusal of the zimni orders of the trial court, as reproduced in the affidavit placed on record, reveals that petitioners were granted at least 16 effective opportunities for their evidence. It is also worth mentioning that after availing 09 opportunities for their evidence, the defendants moved application for secondary evidence of the Will, although such an application should have been moved at the initial stage, when the case was fixed for evidence of the defendants for the first time. However, even after the said application was allowed, the defendants were granted 07 more opportunities for their evidence. In all, petitioners have been granted 16 opportunities for their evidence. Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) stipulates grant of only three opportunities to a party for its evidence. The said provision being rule of procedure, is directory and not mandatory and is, therefore, followed with some flexibility and not with extreme rigidity. However, even the flexible approach would not help the petitioners in the instant case because they have already been granted over indulgence by the trial court by granting as many as 16 opportunities for their evidence. The aforesaid provision has been introduced with salutary motive of expeditious disposal of the cases and to curtail delay in disposal of the cases. The said provision cannot be made completely redundant by granting another opportunity to the petitioners for their evidence in the instant case because they have already been granted 16 effective opportunities for their evidence. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. The said provision cannot be made completely redundant by granting another opportunity to the petitioners for their evidence in the instant case because they have already been granted 16 effective opportunities for their evidence. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. Impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.