Civil Revision No. 727 of 2009 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 727 of 2009 Date of decision. 14.07.2009 Krishan Kumar Sardana son of Dr. Karam Chand Sardana, resident of H. No. 21, Sector 7-A, Faridabad. ....... Petitioner Versus 1.Sita Ram Adlakha son of Smt. Sabai Bai widow of Shri Baldev Raj son of Chandan Ram, resident of Jagdish Colony, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad 2.Hans Raj son of Shri Ganesh Dass resident of Ward No.3, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr.R.S. Sihota, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the respondents. **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision-petition is directed against the order dated 16.01.2009, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge ( Senior Division ), Faridabad, vide which it dismissed the application Civil Revision No. 727 of 2009 --2-- for additional evidence, filed by the petitioner, during the course of execution petition. 2. The petitioner claimed himself to be a tenant, in the disputed premises, comprising two shops, wherein, he has been running his clinic as Doctor since 1973. It was stated that the premises, in dispute, were let out to him by Hari Chand son of Smt. Sobai Bai, who was the owner of the same, and after her death, the same were inherited by her sons Hari Chand and Sita Ram. During her life time, Smt. Sobai Bai, filed a civil Suit No. 551 dated 21.10.1991 against one Hans Raj son of Ganesh Dass, for possession, by way of redemption, which was decreed, in respect of the disputed shops bearing nos. 1 and 3, in her favour, on deposit of mortgage amount of Rs.2,000/- in the Court within one month from 11.4.1994 (the date of decree). It was further stated that likewise, another Civil Suit No. 552 dated 21.10.1991, for possession by way of redemption against Subash Chand son of Bodh Raj, was also decreed ex-parte, in respect of shop Nos. 2 and 4, on deposit of mortgage amount of Rs.2,000/- within one month from the date of decree (11.04.1994). It was further stated that in the Civil Revision No. 727 of 2009 --3-- execution petition against Hans Raj and Subash Chand, the petitioner, who claimed himself to be a tenant in shop nos. 2 and 4, filed an objection petition under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on various grounds interalia, that he could not be ejected from the tenanted premises, in execution of the said decrees. In that execution petition, as many as six witnesses were examined by the petitioner. Hari Chand,OW6, stated that he neither issued any receipt, nor scribed the same. The evidence of the petitioner was closed by the Court below vide order dated 02.01.2009, which has been separately challenged by him. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for additional evidence, which was dismissed by the trial Court, vide order dated 16.01.2009. It was stated that the order, being illegal, was liable to be set aside. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition, was filed by the petitioner. 4. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. Civil Revision No. 727 of 2009 --4-- 5. The Counsel for the revision- petitioner, submitted that the petitioner moved an application for additional evidence for examining the Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert, to prove the signatures of Hari Chand, on the receipt, but the same was wrongly dismissed by the Court concerned, on the ground that it was not maintainable, as the provision for leading additional evidence had already been omitted from the Code of Civil Procedure. He further submitted that the Court could exercise its inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to allow the application to meet the ends of justice. He further submitted that the evidence of Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert is necessary, to prove the execution of receipt. He further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the order dated 16.01.2009, does not suffer from any illegality. He further submitted that once Hari Chand, a witness, examined by the objector, stated that he did not execute the receipt, showing that the petitioner Civil Revision No. 727 of 2009 --5-- was a tenant, in the demised premises, the Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert, could not be allowed to be examined by him, to nullify the statement of his own witness. He further submitted that the order impugned, being legal and valid and was liable to be upheld. 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case, in which the order impugned, deserves to be set aside, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. No doubt, the provision with regard to the leading of additional evidence, was deleted, from the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the Executing Court, was well within its right, to allow the additional evidence, if it thought that the same was essential, for the just decision of the matter, in controversy, under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by invoking the inherent powers. The mere fact that Hari Chand, OW6, denied the execution of receipt, showing the petitioner, to be a tenant, in the demised premises, did not mean that the petitioner was de-barred from examining the Handwriting and Civil Revision No. 727 of 2009 --6-- Fingerprints Expert, to prove the signature of Hari Chand, OW, on the receipt. No provision of law creates such a bar. The petitioner may be somewhat negligent in producing the Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert, at the relevant time, yet he cannot be penalized, to such an extent as may occasion manifest injustice to him. The Procedure is, in the ultimate, the hand-maid of justice, meant to advance the cause thereof, than to thwart the same. The procedural wrangles cannot be allowed to stay, in the way of grant of substantial justice. If the substantial justice and the procedural wrangles, are pitted against each other, then the former will prevail over the latter. In The State of Punjab and another v. Shamlal Murari and another AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1177, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that the procedure is, in the ultimate, the hand- maid of justice, and not its mistress, and is meant to advance its cause, and not to obstruct the same. A procedural rule, therefore, has to be liberally construed, and care must be taken, that so strict an interpretation be not placed thereon, whereby technicality may tend to triumph over justice. It Civil Revision No. 727 of 2009 --7-- has to be kept in mind, that an overly strict construction of procedural provision, may result in the stifling of the material evidence of a party, even if, for adequate reasons, which may be beyond his control. We must always remember that procedural law is not to be a tyrant, but a servant, not an obstruction, but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the hand-maid, and not mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant, in the administration of justice. If the breach can be corrected without injury to a just disposal of the case, the Court should not enthrone a regulatory requirement into a dominant desideratum. After all, the Courts are to do justice, not to wreck this end-product, on technicalities. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, the order dated 16.01.2009, is liable to be set aside, though the opposite party can be compensated, by way of costs. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition is accepted. The order dated 16.01.2009, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, is set aside. The Civil Revision No. 727 of 2009 --8-- petitioner shall be granted two reasonable opportunities to lead his additional evidence, in the objection petition, subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as costs, to the opposite party. These two opportunities shall be inclusive of the opportunities already granted to him, for leading evidence, while setting aside the order dated 02.01.2009 separately. Meaning thereby that the petitioner shall be granted only two opportunities to lead his evidence and additional evidence, in one petition. In case, the petitioner failed to produce evidence, in two opportunities, to be granted to him, in the manner depicted above, the executing Court shall be at liberty to close his evidence. Payment of costs shall be a condition precedent. The parties are directed to appear, in the trial Court on 24.08.2009 at 10.00 AM positively. (Sham Sunder) Judge 14.07.2009 dinesh