IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4438 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.7.2011 Maninder Kaur … Petitioner versus Anita Sharma and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. B.R.Rana-I, Advocate for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit for recovery of Rs.50 lacs as damages, titled Maninder Kaur v. Anita Sharma and others. During her evidence, there were two summoned witnesses, namely, concerned Clerk, Office of Deputy Director, Secondary Education,Punjab, Chandigarh and concerned Clerk VRK Branch, Superintendent of Police, Head Quarters, Fatehgarh Sahib. On 19.5.2011, the summons of the said witnesses were received back unserved and the Court below adjourned the case to 11.6.2011 for plaintiff's evidence subject to last and final opportunity. On the said date, plaintiff examined herself and her cross-examination was deferred but at the same time, it was ordered that no other PW is present and no new witness will be allowed to tender or examined. Aggrieved with such observation in the impugned order dated 11.6.2011, the present revision has been preferred. Heard. It transpires from the record that the plaintiff had examined herself when her cross-examination was deferred but the other two summoned witnesses could not be examined since summons issued to them had been received back unserved. However, their presence was beyond the control of the plaintiff. Even otherwise, they had been summoned through the process of the Court. There is nothing to indicate that her object was to delay the proceedings. Counsel for the petitioner seeks only one opportunity and that too subject to payment of costs. Rules C.R. No. 4438 of 2011 -2- and procedure are hand-maid of justice and are meant to enhance it and not to scuttle the same. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and order under challenge set aside. The trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner one effective opportunity for concluding the entire evidence. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this revision is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If the 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. July 26, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE