IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.5853/2008(O&M) Date of Decision: 18.5.2009. Dwarka Dass ..........Petitioner. Versus Basant Singh ..........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Sherry Singh,Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). Petitioner-plaintiff has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 12.12.2007 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Talwandi Sabo, whereby evidence of the petitioner was closed by Court order. Further prayer of the petitioner-plaintiff is for setting aside the order dated 8.10.2008 (Annexure P/2) passed by the learned trial Court dismissing his application for tendering himself for further cross examination. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit filed by the petitioner under Order 37 CPC for recovery of Rs.2,29,300/- (Rs.1,45,000/- as principal amount plus Rs.78,000/- as interest @ 2% p.a., from 7.5.2002 till date) on the basis of a pronote and receipt dated 7.5.2002 executed by the respondent- defendant. Upon notice in the suit respondent-defendant appeared and denied the execution of the alleged pronote and receipt dated 7.5.2002. The stand of the respondent-defendant was that the petitioner-plaintiff is a running a Commission CR NO.5853/2008(O&M) 2 Agent shop and had obtained blank pronote and receipt as collateral security. The suit was filed on 16.8.2004. On the pleadings of the parties issues were framed on 9.11.2005 and thereafter plaintiff led his evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in order to prove the due execution of the pronote and receipt, on 6.11.2006 the petitioner tendered his affidavit and was cross examined by the learned counsel for the respondent- defendant. However, his remaining cross examination was deferred and he was directed to report back after verifying certain facts from his books of accounts. Learned counsel further submits that when the case was listed on 30.7.2007 the petitioner was present for his remaining cross examination, however, counsel for the defendant-respondent instead of cross examining him moved an application for dismissing the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the case was adjourned to 14.9.2007 for filing reply to that application, . Reply to the application was filed on 14.9.2007 and the case was adjourned to 22.10.2007 for consideration of the said application, on which date the counsel for the defendant-respondent got the said application dismissed as withdrawn and the case was adjourned to 12.12.2007 for petitioner's evidence. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that due to mistake on the part of the counsel for the petitioner, the next date fixed in the case i.e. 12.12.2007 could not be communicated to him and as such petitioner could not present himself for the remaining cross examination on the date fixed. In these circumstances, one last opportunity to conclude the remaining cross examination of the petitioner-plaintiff , on payment of costs, is prayed for. Despite service no one has put in appearance on behalf of the defendant-respondent. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book. It is amply clear that in the absence of further cross examination of the CR NO.5853/2008(O&M) 3 petitioner, his claim in the suit would be prejudiced. It also cannot be said that the petitioner was using delaying tactics or he stood to gain by using such tactics. His non-appearance on 12.12.2008 for completion of remaining cross examination appears to be bona fide. Moreover, it is quite settled that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice to advance the same and not to subvert it. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and settled proposition of law in my considered opinion, it would be just and expedient to grant one last opportunity to the petitioner to get completed his cross examination subject to payment of costs as the same would facilitate complete and effective determination of the dispute between the parties. Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed, impugned orders Annexures P/1 and P/2 are set aside and petitioner is granted one last effective opportunity, at his own responsibility to present himself for further cross examination by the opposite counsel on the next date of hearing or on a date to be fixed by the learned Trial Court, subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- as costs, to be paid to the respondent-defendant. 18.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge