C.R. No. 5522 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- C.R. No. 5522 of 2006 Date of Decision:- 28.4.2009. Jagdish Sharma W/o Kesho Ram Sharma .... Petitioner. Versus Tarsem Lal and other .... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. Present:- Mr. R.K.Chibbar, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Ranjit Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.P.Bhandari, Advocate, for the respondents. Hemant Gupta, J (Oral). The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Executing Court on 19.8.2006 whereby objections filed by the petitioner to the execution of the decree dated 20.9.1992 were dismissed. The petitioner alleges himself to be purchaser of the suit property on the basis of sale deed dated 30.5.1988 from Urmil Gupta. Urmil Gupta had purchased the property on 1.10.1981 from one Sukhdev Singh . Sukhdev Singh purchased property from Satinder Singh on 19.6.1981. Satinder Singh is the legal heir of Pritam Kaur. The decree holder has alleged the oral agreement on 15.9.1973 in respect of land measuring 628 Sq. Feet with Pritam Kaur. The decree holder filed a suit for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement on 20.8.1990 against Pritam Kaur, through her legal representative Satinder Singh. Satinder Singh has filed a written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff. On the basis of such written statement, a decree of specific performance was passed on C.R. No. 5522 of 2006 2 20.2.1992. It was during the course of the execution of the decree, the present objection petition was filed in which the objectors have not produced any oral evidence and the evidence was closed by the counsel after tendering documents Mark 'A' to Mark 'J'. In the revision petition, the petitioner has filed an application for additional evidence and sought that the matter be remitted back to the learned Executing Court to enable the petitioner to appear as a witness before the Executing Court and to prove the documents tendered before the Executing Court. It is the stand of the objector that he has raised construction on the plot in dispute with the permission of Municipal Committee, Ambala and started residing in the house without any interruption from any corner. It has also been pointed out that both the children of the petitioners are settled in Australia and on account of health problem, both the petitioners have to go to Australia for surgery. The petitioners plead that after the grant of stay, it was presumed by them that nothing more is required to be done by them. Therefore they could not lead evidence as they were not advised to do so at any stage of the proceedings. The said application for additional evidence is resisted by the decree holder. It is the case of the decree holder that the objections remained pending for a period of six years. No evidence was led by the objectors even though six opportunities were granted to the objector to lead her evidence. Therefore, at this stage, no case is made out for providing another opportunity to the petitioner to lead her evidence in support of objections. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Smt. Rani Kusum Vs. Smt. Kanchan Devi, J.T (2005) 7 SC 409 to contend that procedural C.R. No. 5522 of 2006 3 law is not tyrant but a servant not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural proceedings are handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant to the administration of justice. The object of prescribing the procedure is to advance the cause of justice. No party should ordinarily be deprived of the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispension. It is also argued that for the default of the petitioner in leading evidence, the respondent decree holder can be compensated with costs but the manner in which decree was passed and keeping in view the case set up by the plaintiff, the petitioner requires opportunity to lead evidence to advance cause of justice. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection if one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to lead her entire evidence but in a time bound manner so that the petitioner is not able to delay the execution of the decree, which is pending for the last seven years. Normally, the Court is slow to interfere in permitting the aggrieved person to lead additional evidence in revision petition, but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the opinion that petitioner is required to be provided with another opportunity to lead her evidence in support of her objections in the following terms: (i)the petitioner shall lead her entire evidence within a period of three months on payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid on 18.5.2009; (ii) the petitioner herself or through her attorney shall appear before the learned Executing Court on 18.5.2009 on which date learned Executing Court shall fix the date for evidence of the C.R. No. 5522 of 2006 4 petitioner before 15.6.2009. If for any reason, the petitioner is not able to lead/conclude her evidence, another date will be given to the objector in the month of July 2009. No other opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to lead evidence; (iii)If the petitioner wishes to summon any witness, the petitioner shall be entitled to give a list of witnesses on 18.5.2009 whom she want to summon. But it will be the responsibility of the petitioner to secure the presence of the witnesses for the purpose of examination in the Court. (iv)if the petitioner fails to lead her evidence within the aforesaid period, then the objections filed by the petitioner shall be deemed to be dismissed without any further reference. (v) learned Executing Court will fix the case for evidence, if the cost of Rs.10,000/- are paid on 18.5.2009; (vi)learned Executing Court shall provide one opportunity to the decree-holder to lead evidence in the month of August 2009; (vii)the objections shall thereafter be decided on or before 30.9.2009; With the aforesaid directions, the present revision petition is disposed of. Parties to appear before the Executing Court on 18.5.2009 for further proceedings. April 28, 2009 (Hemant Gupta) tripti Judge