IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3873 of 2011 Date of decision: 3.6.2011 Kamal Singh … Petitioners versus Sunita Devi and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit for specific performance, titled Kamal Singh v. Rambir through legal representatives and others. He is aggrieved with order date 10.5.2011 passed by the Civil Judge(Sr.Division), Rewari, by dint of which his evidence has been closed by order of the Courts. Hence, this revision. Heard. The impugned order indicates that the plaintiff-petitioner had been callous in not concluding his evidence despite number of opportunities including the last one. However, counsel for the petitioner, in all fairness, contends that the petitioner needs only one opportunity for which he is ready to compensate the other party with costs. What is left to be examined by the plaintiff is himself and stated to be one more witness. Plaintiff's evidence is necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. Rules and procedure are hand-maid of justice and are meant to enhance it and not to scuttle the same. 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, impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to afford one effective opportunity to the petitioner to conclude his entire evidence. This order, however, is subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the C.R. No. 3873 of 2011 -2- opposite side before the trial Court. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition 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 revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. June 03, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE