Civil Revision No. 3030 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3030 of 2011 Date of Decision: 6.5.2011 *** Varinder Singh & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Rajinder Kumar & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioners initially filed a suit for declaration against the respondents and after contest, the same was partly decreed vide judgment and decree dated 6.5.2006. The said judgment and decree was challenged by the petitioners by way of an appeal, but vide order dated 19.3.2008 the learned appellate Court below dismissed the same under Order 9 Rule 2 CPC since the appellants did not furnish correct address and registered cover for the service of respondent No.6, who remained to be served in the case. On 25.4.2008 an application for restoration of the appeal was filed, but the same was dismissed by dint of order dated 2.2.2011 being not maintainable. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in all fairness, conceded that the petitioners remained somewhat negligent in not complying with the directions of the Court qua furnishing of RC and correct address of respondent No.6, but considering the fact that the plaintiffs are pursuing the case since long, the order passed by the Court below is harsh in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is apparent from the records that only the service of defendant No.6 was remained to be effected when the appeal was dismissed. This Court is not touching the legality of the impugned orders, under which they have been passed viz. under Order 9 Rule 2 CPC and Civil Revision No. 3030 of 2011 2 Order XLI Rule 19 CPC, considering the fair stand of learned counsel for the petitioners. However, it cannot be believed that the plaintiffs are not interested in pursuing the appeal, as held in the order dated 19.3.2008, irrespective of the fact that they were roaming in the corridors of the Court since long and had partly succeeded in their case. Surprisingly, the appellate Court below took about three years in deciding the application for restoration of the case alone, within which the main appeal could have been decided on merits, instead of falling into technicalities, which can otherwise be avoided. It shall be the endeavor of the Courts to decide the lis between the parties on merits. 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 handmaid of justice and not to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice.” Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and orders, under challenge, are quashed. The appellate Court below is directed to restore the appeal of the plaintiffs at its original number and proceed with the case in accordance with law. The order passed is subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/-, which the petitioners shall deposit with the District Legal Aid Fund of division where their appeal was earlier pending and shall produce the receipt of the same before the appellate Court below. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this petition is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, they will have Civil Revision No. 3030 of 2011 3 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. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 06 , 2011 Jiten