IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2676 of 2011 Date of decision: 25.4.2011 Kewal Singh … Petitioner versus Mohinder Kaur and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. K.S.Dhillon, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit for recovery. Eight effective opportunties were afforded to the petitioner to conclude his evidence. He did not conclude the evidence and as such, vide order dated 4.3.2011 passed by the Civil Judge(Senior Division), Jalandhar, his evidence has been closed by order of the Court. Hence, this revision. Heard. There is no dispute with the fact that number of opportunities had been granted to the present petitioner to conclude his evidence but a bare perusal of zimni orders placed on record indicates that there were intervening factors for the delay as the cross-examination of witnesses was deferred at the request for the counsel for the defendants. There was a talk of compromise and there was death of defendant No.1 and a request was made for impleading his legal representatives. Rules and procedure are hand-maid of justice and are meant for enhancing the same and not to scuttle it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.Balaji v. Virendra Singh and others, (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 312, has held that the procedure would not be used to discourage the substantial and effective C.R. No. 2676 of 2011 -2- justice but would be construed as to advance the cause of justice. Keeping in view the fact that the dispute between the parties is required to be disposed of on merits and not on the basis of technicalities, this revision petition is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside and the trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner three opportunities to conclude his entire evidence. The order passed is, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the petitioner, out of which Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to the opposite side while the remaining Rs.10,000/- shall be deposited District Legal Aid Services Authority. 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. April 25, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE