Civil Revision No. 3349 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3349 of 2011 Date of Decision: 20.5.2011 *** Vijay Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. Kishan Chand & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. K.C. Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The present petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved with the order dated 1.2.2011 by virtue of which his evidence has been closed by the Court order. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that on 1.2.2011 the case was received by transfer from some other Court and the plaintiff could not produce his evidence on that date and prayed that if one opportunity is not granted to the plaintiff to conclude his evidence, he would suffer an irreparable loss. Rules and procedure are handmaid of justice. These are meant to enhance the cause of justice and not to scuttle the same. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by LRs and Ors. Vs. Parmod Gupta (Smt.) (dead) by LRs and Ors. 2003(3) SCC 272, in para 26 of the judgment had opined as under:- “Laws of procedure are meant to regular effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose even an adjudication merits of substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and other laws. Procedure has always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not to hamper the cause of Civil Revision No. 3349 of 2011 2 justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice.” Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and order, under challenge, is set aside. The trial court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner for concluding his evidence. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If 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. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 20, 2011 Jiten