RSA No. 1956 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1956 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: November 30, 2010 Satyavir Singh ...Appellant Versus Meer Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. RS Sangwan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate, for the respondents. GURDEV SINGH, J. Costs paid and accepted. The appellant/plaintiff filed suit for declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of the land in dispute measuring 2 kanals 16 marlas situated in village Dhadi Bana, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession. According to him, the land in dispute was given to him by the defendants about 33 years back by way of mutual partition and since then he is coming in peaceful possession thereof without any interruption and, as such, has also became owner by way of adverse possession. The defendants did not appear in the court inspite of their service and were proceeded exparte. However, subsequently defendant RSA No. 1956 of 2010 2 No.5 moved an application for joining the proceedings, which was allowed, vide order dated 20.1.2009. The evidence of the plaintiff was closed after four opportunities were granted to him, including two last opportunities. In the result, his suit was dismissed under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri, vide judgment and decree dated 8.5.2009. He preferred the first appeal, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge (Adhoc) Bhiwani, vide judgment and decree dated 24.10.2009. Now he has come up with the present second appeal against those judgments and decrees. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff was never forewarned by the trial court before closing his evidence. In fact, the plaintiff was suffering from dysentery on the date his evidence was closed by order. He was not in a position to attend the court and produce the evidence. He submitted that one more opportunity be granted to the plaintiff to produce his evidence and no prejudice is likely to be caused to the defendants/respondents. They can suitably be compensated with costs. The trial court granted four opportunities to the plaintiff to produce his evidence. It can be said to be sufficient opportunity, as according to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, a party is ordinarily entitled to three opportunities to produce his evidence. However, the Rules of procedure are handmaids to justice meant for advancing the cause of justice and not for defeating the same. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was suffering from dysentery and was not in a position to attend the court on the date his evidence was closed. The trial court could have passed an RSA No. 1956 of 2010 3 order of lesser gravity by burdening the plaintiff with costs for granting further adjournment. The spirit of the law requires that matter be decided on merits, after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence. In order to meet the ends of justice, this second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower courts are set aside. The trial court is directed to decide the suit on merit after giving one effective opportunity to the plaintiff to produce his evidence. However, the plaintiff shall be entitled to that opportunity subject to the payment of Rs. 3,000/- as costs. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. November 30, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE