C.R.No.5323 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5323 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 16, 2009 Municipal Corporation,Gurgaon through its Joint Commission ...........Petitioner Versus Mir Singh and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Parveen Gupta, Advocate, for Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. -- Sabina, J. (oral) Plaintiff-Mir Singh and others filed a suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. Initially, Gram Panchayat was arrayed as defendant No.4. Vide order dated 4.4.2009, petitioner-Municipal Corporation Gurgaon was substituted as defendant No.4. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for the filing of amended title for 26.5.2006. On the said date, the amended title was filed and the case was adjourned to 4.6.2009 for defendants evidence. On 4.6.2009, the case was again adjourned for defendants evidence as on that day no witness of the C.R.No.5323 of 2009 (O&M) 2 defendants was present. On 21.7.2009, the evidence of the defendants was closed by order on the ground that many opportunity had already been granted to the defendants to conclude their evidence. The case was adjourned for rebuttal evidence, if any, and arguments. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the perusal of the interim orders placed on record, it is evident that the petitioner had not been granted sufficient opportunities to conclude its evidence. Petitioner has been substituted as defendant No.4 on 4.4.2009. Now, the case is listed for 30.9.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that only one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to conclude its evidence on the date fixed before the trial Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. In the present case, if an opportunity is granted to the petitioner to lead its evidence, the lis between the parties would be decided on merits. Moreover, the other side can be compensated with the costs. Judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Even from the interim orders discussed above, it is evident that it is a fit case where the petitioner is liable to be allowed one opportunity to conclude its evidence. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 21.7.2009 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to grant one C.R.No.5323 of 2009 (O&M) 3 more opportunity to the petitioner to lead its evidence at its own risk and responsibility subject to payment of Rs.2500/- as costs. Petitioner shall conclude its evidence on the date fixed by the trial Court and no further adjournment shall be granted to the petitioner to lead its evidence. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court, Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (Sabina) Judge September , 2009 arya ( Sabina ) Judge September 16, 2009 arya