1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3032 of 2011. Date of Decision: 6.5.2011 *** Jasbir Singh .. Petitioner VS. Surjit Singh & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The present petitioner is the defendant in the suit for possession filed by respondent Surjit Singh. During the course of his evidence, he filed an application seeking summoning of some witnesses, but the Court below dismissed the same vide order dated 5.4.2011, on the ground that correct details of the witnesses to be summoned have not been given and is being filed to delay the proceedings. The Court below further vide order dated 13.4.2011 closed the evidence of the petitioner-defendant. Dis-satisfied with the same, the petitioner has impugned both the aforesaid orders in the instant civil revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in all fairness, contends that the the petitioner is being sued in a suit for possession and if one opportunity to conclude his evidence is not granted, he will suffer irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated in any manner. That apart, an undertaking has been given that whosoever witness is to be examined, the petitioner produce him at his own responsibility. In view of this, in the considered opinion of this Court, it will be desirable to grant one more effective opportunity to the petitioner-defendant for his evidence. Moreover, the dispute between the parties is required to be disposed of on merits and not on the basis of technicalities. Rules and procedures are handmaid of justice and are meant for enhancing the same and not to scuttle 2 it. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The trial court is directed to afford one effective opportunity to the petitioner for concluding his evidence, which he shall produce at his own responsibility. This order is subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-, which shall be paid by the petitioner to the plaintiff in the Trial Court, before leading his evidence. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, they will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. 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 allowed accordingly. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 06,2011 Jiten