IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.2422/2009 Date of Decision: 1.5.2009. Subodh ..........Petitioners. Versus Sham Lal and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. JS Sandhu,Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the order dated 19.3.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accideent Claims Tribunal,Karnal whereby evidence of the petitioner was closed by order of the court. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but the claim petition as well. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a claim petition filed by the petitioner under the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only two PWs remain to be examined In these circumstances, reasonable and sufficient opportunity to CR NO.2422/2009 2 conclude the entire evidence of the petitioner is prayed for. Heard learned counsel and perused the paper book. It is quite settled that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice to advance the same and not to subvert it. Furthermore, while adjudicating claim petitions under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, a beneficial piece of legislation, the Tribunals/Courts are not required to adopt a hypertechnical approach. Further, neither it can be said that the claimant is causing unnecessary delay in adducing his evidence nor can it be said that he would gain anything by adopting delaying tactics. It is a known fact that for claimants belonging to poor section of the society it becomes a harrowing task in collecting and producing the evidence. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and settled proposition of law in my considered opinion, it would be just and expedient to grant reasonable and sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to conclude his entire evidence subject to payment of costs. Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed, impugned order dated 19.3.2009 is set aside and petitioner is directed to be granted reasonable and sufficient opportunity to conclude his entire evidence, subject to payment of Rs.500/- as costs to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority,Haryana. 1.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge