IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2931 of 2011 Date of decision: 4.5.2011 Bijender … Petitioner versus Parkash and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit for mandatory injunction by way of possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction titled as Bijender v. Parkash and others. He is aggrieved with order dated 18.1.2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Faridabad, by dint of which his evidence has been closed by order of the Court. Heard. The impugned order has been passed mainly on the ground that the plaintiff had availed four effective opportunities including two last opportunities but failed to conclude the evidence. It is not in dispute that on 18.1.2011 counsel for the plaintiff was ready to conclude the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner; however, on that date since the father- in-law of the plaintiff had expired and he had to go for his cremation in his native village in Uttar Pradesh, he could not attend the court proceedings. This indicates that the absence of the plaintiff and for not producing the evidence was not intentional or deliberate but due to the cogent reason as stated above. In this back-drop of the facts, the petitioner-plaintiff deserves one opportunity to lead and conclude his evidence. Rules and procedure are hand-maid of justice and are meant for enhancing the same and not to scuttle it. Accordingly, this C.R. No. 2931 of 2011 -2- revision petition is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside. The trial Court is directed to afford one effective opportunity to the petitioner to conclude his entire evidence. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this revision is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If the 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 disposed of accordingly. May 4, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE