Civil Revision No. 3327 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3327 of 2011 Date of Decision: 19.5.2011 *** Shyam Sunder Madaan .. Petitioner Vs. Subhash Chand Madaan. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The present petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit for recovery filed by him against the respondent-defendant. He is aggrieved with order dated 30.3.2011 by virtue of which his evidence has been closed by Court order. Heard. The plaintiff wanted to examine one official of MCF namely B.S. Dhillon, who though was present on 22.2.2011 but had not brought the summoned record and thus, he was again ordered to be summoned for 30.3.2011. The plaintiff is stated to have deposited the relevant process fee for his re-summoning, but summons could not be issued. Though prior to that date, the petitioner has remained negligent in concluding his evidence despite availing several opportunities, but considering the fact that the dispute is between two brothers for recovery of possession, in the considered opinion of this Court if one more effective opportunity is not provided to the petitioner for concluding his evidence, he shall suffer irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated in any manner. Furthermore, the defendant can be well compensated in terms of money. 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 Civil Revision No. 3327 of 2011 2 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 subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-, to conclude his evidence. In case the cost is not paid on the next date of hearing fixed before the learned trial Court, the instant petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, he will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondent that if he feel dissatisfied with this order, he may move an application to recall the same. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 19, 2011 Jiten