IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2936 of 2011 Date of decision: 31.5.2011 Ram Singh … Petitioner versus M/s Annpurna Filling Station, Kaithal ... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. P.P.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the defendant in the suit for possession by way of specific performance, titled M/s Annpurna Filling Station through its proprietor Ramesh Chand v. Ram Singh. He is aggrieved with the order dated 4.4.2011 by virtue of which his evidence has been closed by order of the Court. The facts are that on 4.3.2011, the summoned witness though served but was not present and one opportunity was granted to the defendant-petitioner to conclude evidence on the next date subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/- to be deposed in the Legal Aid Cell and as such, bailable warrants of the said witness were also issued. The payment of costs was a condition precedent for the further prosecution of the case. However, on the next date, though the witness was present but since the costs were not paid, the said impugned order was passed. Hence, this revision. Heard. Counsel for the petitioner seeks only one opportunity for the defendant-petitioner to lead evidence on the ground that he was not apprised by his counsel before the Court below about the costs imposed and as such, the same could not be deposited in the Legal Aid Cell. The impugned order indicates that the witness was present on that date but could C.R. No. 2936 of 2011 -2- not be recorded since the deposit of the costs was a condition precedent. It is a settled proposition of law that for the negligence of the counsel, a party should not suffer. An irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner- defendant if he is not afforded one opportunity to lead his entire evidence though he was callous as well but the other party can be compensated with costs. Rules and procedure are hand-maid of justice and are meant to enhance it and not to scuttle the same. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to afford one effective opportunity to the petitioner-defendant to lead his entire evidence; however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-, in addition to the costs of Rs.1000/- already imposed, to be paid by the petitioner- defendant to the opposite side before the trial Court. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If the respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, they will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondent that if they feel dissatisfied with this order, they may move an application to recall the same. May 31, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE