Regular Second Appeal No. 3733 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3733 of 2007. (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.2.2009 *** Hardial Singh & Ors. .. Appellants VS. State of Haryana & ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Davinder Lubana, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Ajay Gulati, AAG Haryana. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is plaintiffs' regular second appeal. The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the land measuring 13 bighas 3 biswas on the basis of registered sale-deed dated 8.4.1996 and that the entries in revenue record and the cancellation of allotment of the original allottee by defendant No.2 are null and void and in contravention of provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation Act) sought restraint order to the effect that the defendants be restrained from interfering in their peaceful possession over the suit property. The defendants contested the suit tooth and nail. The issues were framed by the learned trial court on the basis of pleadings of the parties. The learned trial court dismissed the suit by invoking the provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 CPC, since no evidence was adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs in support of their claim. The appeal preferred by them was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court below. On 19.11.2007 when this appeal came up for hearing, it was ordered to be heard along with RSA No. 3474 of 2007 having an identical issue. But due to inadvertence this appeal was not listed along with aforesaid RSA and now the learned counsel for the appellants has placed on Regular Second Appeal No. 3733 of 2007 2 record the copy of judgment passed in RSA No. 3474 of 2007, decided on 24.7.2008 wherein this Court, under similar circumstances, remanded the case to the trial Court with a direction to grant two opportunities to lead their evidence. Adverting to the facts of present case, admittedly the plaintiffs have been non-suited on the ground that they have failed to produce any evidence despite availing sufficient opportunities and thus, failed to substantiate their plea and accordingly their suit has been dismissed on mere technicalities and not on merits. In the case of Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by LRs and others Vs. Parmod Gupta (Smt.)(dead) by LRs and others, 2003(3) SCC 272, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the rules of procedure are handmaid of justice and are meant to enhance the same and not to scuttle it. That apart, it should be the endeavour of the Courts to decide the lis between the parties on merits and not on the basis of mere technicalities and the procedure would not be used to discourage the substantial and effective justice but would be construed as to advance the cause of justice. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiffs are entitled to avail two effective opportunities for leading their evidence. Even otherwise, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants, who not only have an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses but can well be compensated with costs. As a sequel to the above discussion, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs. 3000/-, to be paid by the plaintiffs and the matter is remitted back to the learned trial court for deciding the same afresh after affording two effective opportunities to the plaintiffs for adducing their evidence and thereafter to proceed with the case, in accordance with law. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear over there on 4.3.2009. Lower Court record, if received, be returned back immediately to the quarters concerned. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE February 17,2009 Jiten