IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.1896/2009(O&M) Date of Decision: 6.5.2009. Devinder Singh ..........Petitioner. Versus Jain Singh and others ..........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Manu Goyal,Advocate for Mr.Arvind Singh,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.D.Achint,Advocate for respondent no.1. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). CM No.8191-CII of 2009 seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of Annexure P/1 allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CR No.1896/2009. Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the order dated 20.3.2009(Annexure P/2) passed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division)Kurukshetra, whereby evidence of the petitioner-defendant was closed by order of the court. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit for permanent injunction filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff alleging therein that he is in possession of the suit land and the petitioner-defendant alongwith his brother want to take forcible possession of the same. The stand of the petitioner-defendant and defendant gram panchayat is that plaintiff-respondent wants to encroach upon the land in dispute belonging to the gram panchayat. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 20.3.2009 cross CR NO.1896/2009(O&M) 2 examination of DW-3 Om Parkash and DW-4 Gurnam Singh was recorded. Thereafter, counsel for the petitioner-defendant sought adjournment to produce and examine ex-Sarpanch Raj Mohinder Singh, whose evidence is very much essential for effectively defending the suit. However, the learned trial Court closed the evidence of the petitioner-defendant by stating that sufficient opportunities have already been granted for that purpose. It is case of the petitioner that ex-Sarpanch Raj Mohinder Singh is openly favouring the plaintiff-respondent and as such despite service he is not appearing. His appearance is required to prove the field book and site plan of the abadi. The other witness sought to be examined is Shri S.D.Kankarwal, who prepared the site plan submitted by the Gram Panchayat alongwith its written statement(Annexure P1). Thus testimony of both these witnesses is necessary to effectively determine the dispute between the parties. It is further averred that road and diet money in respect of these two witnesses has already been deposited by the petitioner. In these circumstances, two effective opportunities to conclude the entire evidence of the petitioner-defendant, on payment of costs, is prayed for. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. It can not be disputed that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice to advance the same and not to subvert it. If despite petitioner's depositing expenses towards road and diet money and effecting service upon witnesses they are not appearing, the learned trial Court was not justified in closing the evidence of the petitioner-defendant. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, settled proposition of law, and for effective and final adjudication of lis between the parties, in my considered opinion, it would be just and expedient to grant two effective opportunities to the petitioner- defendant to conclude his entire evidence on the dates to be fixed by the learned CR NO.1896/2009(O&M) 3 Trial Court, subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/-. Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed, impugned orders dated 20.3.2009 (Annexure P/2) is set aside and petitioner-defendant is granted two effective opportunities, at his own responsibility to conclude his entire evidence on the dates to be fixed by the learned Trial Court, subject to payment of Rs.1,000/- as costs, to be paid to the respondent no.1 namely Jai Singh, by way of demand draft. 6.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge