IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.1995/2009 Date of Decision:17.4.2009. Manjit Singh ..........Petitioner Versus Sucha Singh and others. ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.Yogesh Goel,Advocate for the petitioner JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). Petitioner, who is a defendant in a suit for recovery, has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the orders dated 9.5.2008 (Annexure P/3) and 20.1.2009(Annexure P/6) whereby learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ludhiana closed his evidence by Court order and also dismissed his application for leading additional evidence. Briefly the facts are that petitioner—defendant had agreed to sell certain plots to the respondent-plaintiffs vide agreement to sell dated 11.2.1994 and had received earnest money as well as some instalments. However, before the agreement could mature and sale deed executed, petitioner-defendant resiled from his part of the agreement and due to the intervention of the respectables an agreement of mutual understanding was executed on 22.3.1996 whereby petitioner-defendant issued a cheque dated 22.6.1996 for a sum of Rs.1.57 lacs in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents, which on presentation, was dishonoured and resultantly the respondents-plaintiffs filed the instant suit for recovery of Rs.1,72,000/- (principal amount plus interest) on 28.2.1997. The issues were framed on 17.8.1999 and the respondents-plaintiffs took 9 years to complete their evidence when on 17.8.2007 their evidence was closed by Court order. Thereafter the case was fixed for petitioner-defendant's evidence for 3.9.2007. Vide CR NO.1995/2009 2 impugned order dated 9.5.2008 the evidence of the petitioner was closed by Court order. It is averred that soon thereafter the petitioner moved an application dated 28.5.2008 (Annexure P/4) for leading additional evidence by way of producing and proving the receipt executed by plaintiff Sucha Singh in token of having already received the suit amount, which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.1.2009 (Annexure P/6) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondents-plaintiffs took nine years to conclude their evidence whereas petitioner-defendant's evidence has been closed by the learned Trial Court in a span of nine months only, although it is fairly conceded that sufficient opportunities had been granted. It is further contended that production of the receipt is essential for effective and complete adjudication between the parties. Therefore, a prayer has been made for granting two effective opportunities to complete the entire evidence of the petitioner-defendant. It is well settled that laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, attend and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose an adjudication on merits for governing rights of citizens under various laws. Procedural laws must be liberally construed as they are handmaid of justice to advance the ends of justice and technical objections which tend to be stumbling blocks should be discouraged except where the mandate of law inevitably necessitates it. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the impugned orders and keeping in view the settled proposition of law in my considered opinion, it would be just and expedient to grant two effective opportunities to the petitioner to conclude his entire evidence as the production of alleged receipt by the petitioner- defendant in token of discharging his liability goes to the root of the matter, although with regard to its evidentiary value the same shall be seen at the stage of decision of the case. For the reasons stated above, present revision petition is allowed, impugned orders dated 9.5.2008 (Annexure P/3) and 20.1.2009(Annexure P/6) are set aside and petitioner-defendant is granted two effective opportunities to conclude his entire evidence on two dates to be fixed by the learned Trial Court, at short intervals subject to payment of CR NO.1995/2009 3 Rs.5,000/- , out of which plaintiff-respondent no.1 will be paid Rs.2000/- and rest of the plaintiffs i.e. respondents 2 to 7 herein shall be paid Rs.500/- each. This order is being passed without issuing notice to the respondents-plaintiffs so as to avoid further unnecessary delay as well as to save them from litigation expenses. Moreover, they are being compensated by way of payment of costs. However, if the respondents/plaintiffs still feel aggrieved against this order, they will be at liberty to challenge this order by moving an appropriate application. 17.4.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge