IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1193/2011 Date of decision: 3.3.2011 Sodhi Ram ....................Petitioner v. Dharma Ram .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Manish Soni,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Defendant/ petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 24.12.2010 (P3) whereby the evidence of the defendant has been closed by order. It is stated that plaintiff/respondent Dharma Ram is the father of the defendant/petitioner. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-son from harvesting the wheat crop sown by him in his land measuring 38 kanals 6 marlas fully detailed in the suit, being self-acquired property of the plaintiff. The petitioner/defendant has set up the plea that the suit land is ancestral/ coparcenary property and the petitioner is in exclusive possession of the same and the wheat crop has been sown by the defendant. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner/defendant has been given sufficient opportunities, however, due to wrong mentioning of the date, petitioner could not lead his remaining evidence. He, however, prays that one last opportunity be granted to conclude the evidence subject to payment of appropriate costs. After hearing the learned counsel, I deem it just and expedient in the interest of justice to grant one last opportunity to the defendant/petitioner to conclude his evidence since it is well settled principle of law that rules of procedure are handmaids of justice meant to serve the cause of justice and not to impede the same. Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.12.2010 (P3) closing the evidence of the defendant/petitioner is set aside and the petitioner is granted one last opportunity to lead his entire evidence at his own responsibility on a date to be fixed by the learned trial Court. This, shall, however, be subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- payable to the plaintiff/respondent by way of demand draft. This order is being passed without issuing notice to the respondent as it would result in unnecessary delay in the matter and expenses to him. In any case, respondent is being compensated by way of costs. 3.3.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge