IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 1850 of 2011 Date of decision: 12.5.2011 Sanjay … Petitioner versus Rajender Yadav and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Anish Setia, Advocate, for respondents 1 to 4 ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is one of the defendants in the suit for possession titled Rajender Yadav v. Satish and others. He is aggrieved with order dated 22.2.2011 passed by the Civil Judge(Sr.Division), Rewari, by dint of which the evidence of the defendants has been closed by order of the Court. Heard. Counsel for the petitioner contends that defendants No. 1 to 4 reside in Italy and defendant-Satish had all the way come from Italy to appear in Court on the date fixed i.e. 22.2.2011 but met with an accident and as such, could not appear. The argument is supported by certificate dated 11.3.2011 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Healthway Research and Diagnostic Private Limited, Rewari, indicating that Satish was admitted in the hospital on 22.2.2011 with head injury and still under treatment. Now the contention is that another brother, Sanjay, arrived from Italy to depose before the Court and as such, non-appearance on 22.2.2011 was beyond the control of Satish on account of said accident. No doubt, number of opportunities have been granted to the defendants but certainly on the date C.R. No. 1850 of 2011 -2- when impugned order was passed, Satish is stated to have come from Italy but could not appear on account of his admission in the hospital for head injury. In view of this, if the petitioner is not granted one opportunity to conclude his evidence, he will suffer an irreparable loss. Counsel for the petitioner seeks only one effective opportunity for conclusion of the evidence of the defendants, may be subject to payment of costs. Rules and procedure are hand-maid of justice and are meant for enhancing the same and not to scuttle it. Keeping in view the fact that the dispute between the parties is required to be disposed of on merits and not on the basis of technicalities, this revision petition is allowed, order under challenge is set aside and the trial Court is directed to afford effective opportunity to the defendants for concluding their entire evidence. The order passed is subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- as costs, to be paid to the opposite side before leading evidence in the trial Court. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. May 12, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE