In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5086 of 2009 Date of Decision:September 18, 2009 M/s Malik Trading Company and another ---Petitioner versus Didar Singh and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners. *** SABINA J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 26.5.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat (Annexure P-1)and order dated 28.8.2009(Annexure P-2) whereby the application for additional evidence had been declined. Plaintiffs-Gautam Raj Singla and Chandra Wati have filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment of the shop in dispute. Vide the impugned order dated 26.5.2009 (Annexure P-1) evidence of the petitioners-defendants was closed by order. Thereafter, the petitioners- defendants moved an application for permission to lead additional evidence.The said application was dismissed vide order dated 28.8.2009 (Annexure P-2). Hence the present revision petition. Civil Revision No. 5086 of 2009 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners only want to examine one witness in their defence i.e. Surinder Kumar. His affidavit has already been placed on record. Learned counsel submits that now the case is listed before the trial court for 22.9.2009 and petitioners will examine the said witness on the said date at their own risk and responsibility. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant revision petition deserves to be allowed. In case the petitioners/defendants are allowed to lead their evidence, the lis between the parties would be disposed of on merits. Moreover, the other side can be compensated with costs. Admittedly, four effective opportunities were granted to the petitioners-defendants to lead their evidence but in the interest of justice, petitioners-defendants can be allowed one more opportunity to lead their evidence. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. Petitioners are allowed to lead their evidence on 22.9.20098, the date fixed before the trial court at their own risk and responsibility subject to payment of Rs. 2500/- as costs. Thereafter, the trial court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. (SABINA) JUDGE September 18, 2009 PARAMJIT