Civil Revision No. 3496 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3496 of 2011 Date of Decision: 25.5.2011 *** M/s Wrigley India Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner Vs. M/s Mahavir Enterprises. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The evidence of the petitioner-defendant No.1 has been closed by Court order by virtue of order dated 20.4.2011, which has been impugned in the instant revision petition. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the impugned order to contend that on the date fixed for evidence of the petitioner, the witnesses were duly served, but they did not appear before the Court and in this whole thing there is no fault of the petitioner. He requested that one opportunity be given to the petitioner, may be subject to costs. Rules and procedure are handmaid of justice. These are meant to enhance the cause of justice and not to scuttle the same. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by LRs and Ors. Vs. Parmod Gupta (Smt.) (dead) by LRs and Ors. 2003(3) SCC 272, in para 26 of the judgment had opined as under:- “Laws of procedure are meant to regular effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose even an adjudication merits of substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and other laws. Procedure has always been viewed as the Civil Revision No. 3496 of 2011 2 handmaid of justice and not to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice.” Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and order, under challenge, is set aside. The trial court is directed to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioner subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff for concluding his evidence. In case the cost is not paid on the next date of hearing fixed before the learned trial Court, the instant petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The trial Court shall be at liberty to adopt coercive method to procure the presence of the witnesses. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If 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 feel dissatisfied with this order, he may move an application to recall the same. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 25, 2011 Jiten