Civil Revision No. 4544 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4544 of 2011 Date of Decision: 28.7.2011 *** Shree Ram .. Petitioner Vs. Hawa Singh & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Ramender Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit for permanent injunction. During proceedings therein the defence of the defendants was struck off on account of non-filing of the written statement, on 21.11.2008. The proceedings in the suit were kept going on. However, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment, which was allowed on 8.2.2010. It appears that due to inadvertence the defendants, whose defence was struck of, were asked to file amended written statement, which they did. After that, the trial commenced in normal manner wherein the plaintiff examined his witnesses besides the examination-in-chief of defendant was also recorded. It was at that juncture the mistake was realized. Though the plaintiff objected the continuation of proceedings, but the learned trial Court, taking into the facts that the trial has matured, permitted the continuation of the proceedings in the suit and ordered for conducting cross-examination upon the defendant. Dis-satisfied with the said order, the plaintiff has preferred the present revision petition. Heard. All what has happened before the learned trial Court, in the light of facts above, appear to be a bonafide mistake and by dint of the impugned order the learned trial Court has rectified the mistake only, because the proceedings have matured and it would not be in the interest of justice to declare them a nullity. Rules and procedure are handmaid of Civil Revision No. 4544 of 2011 2 justice. These are meant to enhance the cause of justice and not to scuttle the same. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by LRs and Ors. Vs. Parmod Gupta (Smt.) (dead) by LRs and Ors. 2003(3) SCC 272, in para 26 of the judgment had opined as under:- “Laws of procedure are meant to regular effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose even an adjudication merits of substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and other laws. Procedure has always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice.”. Therefore, no fault could be found with the approach adopted by the learned trial Court in continuing with the proceedings of the case, except the fact that the learned trial Court ought to have compensated the plaintiff. In view of this, the instant petition is disposed of with a modification in the impugned order to the effect that the proceedings be permitted to continue on payment of costs of Rs.5000/- by the defendants to the plaintiff. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, they will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that if they feel dissatisfied with this order, they may move an application to recall the same. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 28, 2011 Jiten