JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral):- Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 29.10.2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, whereby evidence of the petitioners-defendants have been closed by court order and order dated 08.11.2013 (Annexure P/2) whereby review application filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of the petition are that respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction. On notice, defendants appeared before the trial Court. Respondent No.1-plaintiff produced his entire evidence to prove his case and the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff has been closed on 20.02.2013. On completion of evidence of the plaintiff, the case was fixed for defendants’ evidence. Vide order dated 29.10.2013 (Annexure P/1), the evidence of the petitioners-defendants has been closed by order of the Court. Thereafter, petitioners preferred an review application, which was dismissed vide order dated 08.11.2013 (Annexure P/2) by the learned trial Court. Hence, this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitionersdefendants want to examine one witness from the office of Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar to prove the General Power of Attorney given by Harkishan Singh Sandhu, Advocate to Smt. Rupinder Kaur wife of Dr. Kirpal Singh, plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that if one opportunity is granted, the petitioners would examine the above named witnesses in support of their case. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 5. Through this petition, the petitioners seek permission for one last effective opportunity to complete their evidence at their own risk and 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 leading 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 handmaidens 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 Vs. This provision has to be applied with some flexibility and not with rigidity or inflexibility. Rules of procedure are handmaidens 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 Vs. 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 petitioners to complete their evidence at their own risk and responsibility, subject to costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with the concerned District Legal Services Authority, Amritsar. Petitioners will be at liberty to seek the assistance of trial Court in summoning the official witness. Witness of the petitioners-defendants shall be examined/crossexamined on the same day. 6. For the reasons stated above, the impugned orders dated 29.11.2013 (Annexure P/1) and 08.11.2013 (Annexure P/2)are set aside. The revision petition is disposed of without notice to the respondents with a view to avoid delay and expenses in view of the nature of the impugned order. 7. Liberty is granted to the respondents to move this court if they feel aggrieved against this order. ---------0.B.S.0------------