IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2514 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.4.2011 Nirmal Singh … Petitioner versus Jawala Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Amandeep Agnihotri, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the defendant in the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 26.2.2001 filed by the plaintiff. He is aggrieved with the order dated 21.2.2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Division), Dera Bassi, by virtue of which his evidence has been closed by order of the Court. Heard. The case file indicates that it was not solely the fault on the part of the petitioner for not getting his evidence concluded. Rather, at some juncture, there had been adjournments at the instance of plaintiff- respondent; some times the lawyers were on strike and subsequently, there was a talk of some compromise between the parties. Apart this, counsel for the petitioner seeks only one effective opportunity for conclusion of the evidence for which the petitioner is ready to pay 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 permit the petitioner one effective opportunity for evidence and C.R. No. 2514 of 2011 -2- he will conclude his evidence on that date postively. The order passed is subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs, to be paid to the opposite side before leading evidence in the trial Court. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this revision is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If the respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, he will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondent that if he feels dissatisfied with this order, he may move an application to recall the same. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. April 19, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE