IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3026 of 2011 Date of decision: 9.5.2011 Sarabjit Kaur … Petitioner versus Kartar Singh and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Puneet K. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is one of the legal representatives of the plaintiff in the suit titled Naranjan Singh v. Kartar Singh etc. He is aggrieved with the order dated 19.5.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Patiala, by dint of which their evidence has been closed by order of the Court. Hence, this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the petitioner contends that no doubt, the case is old one but the delay had occurred due to number of applications moved by both sides and the delay also occurred during the revision petition earlier filed in this Court. He in all fairness contends that only one opportunity be granted to conclude the evidence. The impugned order is of the year 2009 and the present revision has been preferred only in the year 2011. Counsel for the petitioner states that he is aware of the same but the petitioner is ready to pay exemplary costs. The case is at the stage of defendants' evidence. This Court feels that no prejudice would be cause to the other side if one opportunity is granted otherwise the petitioner will suffer an irreparable loss. Rules and procedure are hand-maid of justice and are meant for enhancing the same and not to scuttle it. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside. The trial Court is directed to afford one opportunity to the petitioner to conclude their C.R. No. 3026 of 2011 -2- evidence. The order passed is, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite side before 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 9, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE