IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4219 of 2011 Date of Decision: 14.7.2011 *** Tejinder Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Tarsem Singh & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit for declaration filed against the respondents. By dint of impugned order dated 4.6.2011 his evidence has been closed by Court order. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in all fairness, has conceded that the petitioner had remained negligent in pursuing his case, but the suit is for declaration, wherein he has challenged the sale-deeds executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondents No.2 to 5 in respect of sale of land, which stood already sold to the plaintiff by respondent No.1 after receiving the due amount. If one more opportunity is not granted to the plaintiff to lead his evidence, he will suffer an irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in any manner. Learned counsel has also pointed out that though the examination-in-chief of petitioner was recorded, but he was not cross-examined and hence, there is no legal evidence on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner. Accordingly, a request has been made for granting one effective opportunity to the petitioner to leading his entire evidence, may be subject to payment of costs to the respondents. 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 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, after the date now fixed i.e. 16.7.2011, for leading his entire evidence. The petitioner shall also present himself on that date for his cross-examination. The order passed is subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents. 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. Copy of this order be given under the signatures of Court Secretary of this Bench. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 14, 2011 Jiten