IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.2904/2009(O&M) Date of Decision:20.5.2009. Jagir Kaur ..........Petitioner. Versus Balwinder Singh ..........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.Manish Prabhaker,Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the order dated 7.3.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)Amritsar, whereby evidence of the respondent was closed by order of the court. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondent as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but the proceedings before the Guardian Judge as well. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act,1890 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Briefly stated, the deceased daughter of the petitioner was married with the respondent. As per averments made in this petition, due to harassment and quarrelsome nature of the respondent, daughter of the petitioner used to CR NO.2904/2009(O&M) 2 mostly reside with her mother (petitioner herein) where she gave birth to one son and a daughter namely Lovepreet Singh and Simranpreet Kaur, aged 9 and 3 years respectively. After the death of daughter of the petitioner the custody of minors is with the petitioner- their maternal grand mother and the respondent is alleged to have contracted second marriage with one Harjit Kaur. It is case of the petitioner that respondent-Balwinder Singh filed a petition under Section 25 of the Act seeking custody of the minor children only to grab the pensionary benefits of her deceased daughter, who during her life time was working as a Teacher. The proceedings in the said petition under Section 25 of the Act are at the evidence stage of the petitioner-respondent. Examination in chief as well as part cross examination of Sham Singh, Ex Sarpanch(RW1) has already been recorded. On 7.3.2009 the case was fixed for remaining cross examination of said Sham Singh, who is alleged to have not appeared on account of election in the village. A request was made for granting an opportunity to complete the cross examination of the said witness, however, the learned trial Court vide impugned order closed the evidence of respondent on the ground that RW1 Sham Singh had not moved any such request in writing. In these circumstances, three effective opportunities to conclude the entire evidence of the petitioner on payment of costs, is prayed for. Heard learned counsel and perused the paper book. It is quite settled that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice to advance the same and not to subvert it. Moreover, the instant petition under Section 25 of the Act relates to custody of two minors and in my considered CR NO.2904/2009(O&M) 3 opinion, in such a sensitive matter for effective and final adjudication, providing adequate opportunities to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective pleas is very much necessary. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and settled proposition of law in my considered opinion, it would be just and expedient to grant two opportunities to the petitioner to conclude her entire evidence on the dates to be fixed by the learned Trial Court, subject to payment of costs. Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed, impugned order dated 7.3.2009 is set aside and petitioner is granted two effective opportunity, to conclude the entire evidence on the dates to be fixed by the learned Guardian Judge,Amritsar subject to payment of Rs.500/- as costs, to be paid to the respondent Balwinder Singh. 20.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge