IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4102 of 2011 Date of decision: 8.7.2011 Rachpal Singh and another … Petitioners versus Surinder Kaur … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. K.S. Rekhi, Advocate, for the petitioners ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit for declaration titled Rachpal Singh and another v. Surinder Kaur. They are aggrieved with order dated 27.4.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar by virtue of which their evidence has been closed by order of the Court. Hence, this revision. Heard. Prior to the date when the evidence was closed, the case was fixed on 28.2.2011 and it was then adjourned to 23.3.2011 subject to payment of Rs.400/- as additional costs. However, the Presiding Officer was on leave on that day. File was taken up on 1.4.2011 since the Presiding Officer was on leave from 22.3.2011 to 31.3.2011 and it was ordered that the file be put up on 27.5.2011. However, the impugned order had been passed on 27.4.2011 when the date in the case was given as 27.5.2011. Thus, it has been rightly contended by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioners' counsel could not appear before the Court below as he had already noted the date as 27.5.2011, which date was given by the Presiding Officer himself on 1.4.2011. In this back-drop, it is a fit case where the petitioner-plaintiffs deserve one opportunity to lead and conclude their 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. 4102 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 petitioners to conclude their entire evidence; however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2000/- to be paid to the respondent. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this revision is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If the respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, she will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondent that if she feels dissatisfied with this order, she may move an application to recall the same. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. July 08, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE