In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 4104 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:July 24, 2009 Baljit Singh --Petitioner versus Karamjit Kaur and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.Naiya Gill,Advocate, for the petitioner *** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs- Karamjit Kaur and Sapinder Kaur had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 48,000/- from the period from 1.6.2002 to 31.5.2003 as maintenance @ Rs. 4,000/- per month and for future maintenance @ Rs. 4,000/- per month and also prayed that charge be created on the suit land. Notice of the suit was issued to the petitioner-defendant-Baljit Singh. After the closure of the evidence of the plaintiffs on 24.7.2008, the case was adjourned for defendant's evidence. However, despite opportunities including the last opportunity subject to payment of costs of Rs. 300/-, defendant failed to conclude his evidence and consequently vide impugned order dated 12.5.2009, evidence of the defendant was closed. Civil Revision No. 4104 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Hence the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that inadvertently a wrong date had been noted by the defendant and consequently he could not appear before the trial court on 12.5.2009. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present revision petition deserves to be allowed. In the present case, if an opportunity is granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence, the lis between the parties will be decided on merits and more effectively. Judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. In case, the defendant-petitioner is allowed one more opportunity to lead his evidence, lis between the parties will be decided on merits and it will advance the cause of justice. Although petitioner was negligent and was unable to lead his evidence despite having been granted effective opportunity yet one more opportunity can be granted to him to lead his evidence in the interest of justice as the plaintiffs can be compensated with costs. Accordingly, the impugned order whereby the evidence of the petitioner was closed by order is set aside subject to payment of Rs. 6,000/- as costs at his own risk and responsibility. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case is listed before the trial court on 29.7.2009 for further proceedings. Petitioner is directed to deposit the costs Civil Revision No. 4104 of 2009 (O&M) -3- of Rs. 6,000/- on the said date and the trial court shall fix the case for petitioner's evidence. No further opportunity will be granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SABINA) JUDGE July 24, 2009 PARAMJIT