IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3056 of 2011 Date of decision: 9.5.2011 Ramesh Kumar Ahuja … Petitioner versus Kewal Kishore Ahuja … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Ashish Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the defendant in the suit for declaration titled as Kewal Kishore v. Ramesh Ahuja. He is aggrieved with order dated 27.4.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, by dint of which his application for leading additional evidence has been dismissed. Hence, this revision. The facts are that petitioner-defendant moved an application that there has been an objection by the plaintiff that the defendant is not a proprietorship firm and is a partnership firm and now he wants to examine the bank record indicating that it is a proprietorship firm and not a partnership firm. The main ground for dismissal of the application is that on earlier occasion, plaintiff had moved an application asking the defendant to place on record documents, viz., sale-deed, conveyance-deed and the statement of account but the defendant denied to possess any statement of account. Heard. The document sought by the plaintiff in his application was statement of account of his firm and not bank account, which the defendant-petitioner now wants to place on record by way of leading additional evidence. Counsel for the petitioner prays for only one opportunity in this regard, with the plea that they are ready to compensate the other party by way of payment of costs. It seems that the said additional evidence may be C.R. No. 3056 of 2011 -2- relevant to settle the controversy between the parties. Rules and procedure are hand-maid of justice and are meant for enhancing the same and not to scuttle it. The dispute between the parties is required to be disposed of on merits and not on the basis of technicalities. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the order under challenge is set aside and the trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner one effective opportunity for leading additional evidence in the form of placing on record the bank account. The order passed is subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs, to be paid by petitioner to the opposite side before leading evidence, as stated above, in the trial Court. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this revision is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If the 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 feels dissatisfied with this order, he may move an application to recall the same. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. May 9, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE