IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2493 of 2011 Date of decision: 18.4.2011 Surjit Kaur … Petitioner versus Jalandhar Improvement Trust and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Y.P.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is one of the plaintiffs in the suit for declaration. She is aggrieved with the order dated 23.11.2010 passed by the Civil Judge(Sr.Division, Jalandhar, by dint of which the evidence of the plaintiffs has been closed by Court order. Heard. The impugned order indicates that the evidence was closed since seven opportunities, including last opportunity, had been granted to the plaintiffs to conclude their evidence but they failed to do so. However, a bare perusal of the zimni orders indicates that it was not so. The effective adjournments that had been sought by the plaintiffs were only three and not seven as observed in the impugned order. Counsel for the petitioner seeks only one opportunity for conclusion of the evidence, may be subject to payment of costs. Rules and procedure are hand-maid of justice and are meant for enhancing the same and not to scuttle it. Keeping in view the fact that the dispute between the parties is required to be disposed of on merits and not on the basis of technicalities, this revision petition is allowed, order under challenge is set aside and the trial Court is directed to afford one effective opportunity to the plaintiffs for their evidence and C.R. No. 2493 of 2011 -2- they will conclude their evidence on that date postively. The order passed is subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs, which shall be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority. 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 besides causing unnecessary burden to the public exchequer. 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. April 18, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE