IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3086 of 2011 Date of decision: 10.5.2011 Jaswant Singh … Petitioner versus Satya Devi and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit for declaration titled Jaswant Singh v. Satya Devi and others. He is aggrieved with order dated 23.1.2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Dera Bassi, by dint of which his evidence has been closed by order of the Court. Heard. It transpires from the petition that the plaintiff had examined Manjit Singh but another witness, namely, Jaswant Singh could not be examined as the defendants requested for an adjournment and the case was adjourned to 21.3.2011. On the said date, statement of Jaswant Singh was recorded but there was a summoned witness as well on the said date who was served as per report of the process server, as indicated in Annexure P-1, but was not present. His presence was beyond the control of the plaintiff. There is nothing to indicate that his object was to delay the proceedings. Counsel for the petitioner seeks only one opportunity and that too subject to payment of costs. Rules 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. The order passed is subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs, to be paid by petitioner to the C.R. No. 3086 of 2011 -2- opposite side before leading evidence, as stated above, 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 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. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. May 10, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE