Civil Revision No. 350 of 2009 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 350 of 2009 Date of decision. 14.07.2009 Krishan Kumar Sardana son of Dr. Karam Chand Sardana, resident of H. No. 21, Sector 7-A, Faridabad. ....... Petitioner Versus 1.Sita Ram Adalakha son of Smt. Sabai Bai widow of Shri Baldev Raj son of Chandan Ram, resident of Jagdish Colony, Ballabgarh, District Palwal. 2.Subash Chand son of Bodh Raj Batheja resident of Ward No.3, Ballabgarh, District Palwal. ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr.R.S. Sihota, Senior Advocate with Mr. B.R. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the respondents. **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision-petition is directed against the order dated 02.01.2009, rendered by the Civil Revision No. 350 of 2009 --2-- Court of Civil Judge ( Senior Division ), Faridabad, vide which the evidence of the objector- petitioner during the course of execution petition, was closed. 2. The petitioner claimed himself to be a tenant, in the disputed premises, comprising two shops, wherein, he has been running his clinic as Doctor since 1973. It was stated that the premises, in dispute, were let out to him by Hari Chand son of Smt. Sobai Bai, who was the owner of the same, and after her death, the same were inherited by her sons Hari Chand and Sita Ram. During her life time, Smt. Sobai Bai, filed a civil Suit No. 551 dated 21.10.1991 against one Hans Raj son of Ganesh Dass, for possession, by way of redemption, which was decreed, in respect of the disputed shops bearing nos. 1 and 3, in her favour, on deposit of mortgage amount of Rs.2,000/- in the Court within one month from 11.4.1994 (the date of decree). It was further stated that likewise, another Civil Suit No. 552 dated 21.10.1991, for possession by way of redemption against Subash Chand son of Bodh Raj, was also decreed ex-parte, in respect of shop Nos. 2 and 4, on deposit of Civil Revision No. 350 of 2009 --3-- mortgaged amount of Rs.2,000/- within one month from the date of decree (11.04.1994). It was further stated that in the execution petition against Hans Raj and Subash Chand, the petitioners, who claimed himself tenant in shop nos. 2 and 4, filed an objection petition under Section 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on various grounds interalia, that he could not be ejected from the tenanted premises, in execution of the said decrees. In that execution petition, as many as six witnesses were examined by the petitioner. Hari Chand,OW6, stated that no receipt was issued by him, nor any receipt was scribed by him. The petitioner then deposited an amount of Rs.270/- as diet money of three witnesses, which were yet to be examined by him, but the Executing Court, closed his evidence, vide the order impugned. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition was filed by the petitioner. 4. I have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents, on record carefully. 5. The Counsel for the revision- petitioner, submitted that, there was no default Civil Revision No. 350 of 2009 --4-- on the part of the revision-petitioner, in examining the witnesses. He further submitted that he had deposited the diet money of three witnesses, who are yet to be examined, and it was the duty of the Court to summon them and, if after due service, they failed to appear in the Court, then procure their service through coercive process. He further submitted that, on account of the passing of the order dated 02.01.2009, closing the evidence of the petitioner in the objection petition, a manifest injustice has occasioned to him. He further submitted that the order impugned, be set aside and the petitioner be granted sufficient opportunity to lead his evidence. 6. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that, as many as five opportunities were granted to the petitioner, during the course of execution proceedings, for leading his evidence, but he could not conclude the same. He further submitted that the trial Court, was, thus, right in closing the evidence. He further submitted that once Hari Chand, a witness produced by the petitioner, during the course of execution proceedings, denied the execution of Civil Revision No. 350 of 2009 --5-- receipt, showing the petitioner to be tenant in the demised premises, no other witness could be examined by him (petitioner) to nullify the statement of Hari Chand, his own witness. He further submitted that the order dated 02.01.2009, does not suffer from any illegality, and is lilable to be upheld. 7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case, in which the order impugned, deserves to be set aside, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. From the order dated 02.01.2009, it is evident that three witnesses of the objector were present on that date. Those witnesses were examined. The other witnesses were not present, nor they were served. In case the diet money had been deposited by the petitioner for summoning the witnesses, then it was the duty of the Court, to effect their service. Whatever the case may be, if the order dated 02.01.2009 is not set aside, a manifest injustice shall be caused, to the petitioner, as in that event, he will not be able to prove his right of tenancy, in the Civil Revision No. 350 of 2009 --6-- property, in dispute. No doubt it cannot be said that there was no negligence, at all, on the part of the petitioner, in concluding the evidence. The objection petition was filed on 30.11.2002 and had the petitioner taken effective steps, to conclude his evidence, the objection petition would have been decided by now. However, on account of the negligence of the petitioner, he cannot be penalized, so such an extent as may occasion injustice to him. The Procedure is, in the ultimate, the hand-maid of justice, meant to advance cause thereof than to thwart the same. The procedural wrangles cannot be allowed to stay, in the way of grant of substantial justice. If the substantial justice and the procedural wrangles are pitted against each other, then the former will prevail over the latter. In The State of Punjab and another v. Shamlal Murari and another AIR 1976 Supreme Court 1177, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that the procedure is, in the ultimate, the hand-maid of justice, and not its mistress, and is meant to advance its cause, and not to obstruct the same. A procedural rule, Civil Revision No. 350 of 2009 --7-- therefore, has to be liberally construed, and care must be taken, that so strict an interpretation be not placed thereon, whereby technicality may tend to triumph over justice. It has to be kept in mind, that an overly strict construction of procedural provision, may result in the stifling of the material evidence of a party, even if, for adequate reasons, which may be beyond his control. We must always remember that procedural law is not to be a tyrant, but a servant, not an obstruction, but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the hand-maid, and not mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant, in the administration of justice. If the breach can be corrected without injury to a just disposal of the case, the Court should not enthrone a regulatory requirement into a dominant desideratum. After all, the Courts are to do justice, not to wreck this end-product, on technicalities. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, the order dated 02.01.2009, is liable to be set aside, though the opposite party can be compensated, by way of costs. Civil Revision No. 350 of 2009 --8-- 8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision petition is accepted. The order dated 02.01.2009, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, is set aside. The petitioner shall be granted two reasonable opportunities to lead his evidence, in the objection petition, commencing from 24.08.2009, subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as costs, to the opposite party. In case the petitioner failed to produce evidence, in two opportunities, to be granted to him, the executing Court shall be at liberty to close his evidence. Payment of costs shall be a condition precedent. The parties are directed to appear, in the trial Court on 24.08.2009 at 10.00 AM positively. (Sham Sunder) Judge 14.07.2009 dinesh