IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2693 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.4.2011 Brij Man Mohan Singh … Petitioner versus Om Parkash … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit for injunction titled Brij Man Mohan Singh v. Om Parkash. He is aggrieved with order dated 7.2.2011 by dint of which his evidence has been closed by order of the Court. Heard. The impugned order indicates that the plaintiff had availed three effective opportunities after the last opportunity but had not concluded the evidence. It also indicates that on that day, previous costs were not paid and no PW was present. However, Annexure P-2 indicates that costs of Rs.500/- were duly deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Ambala, on 7.2.2011 itself. Annexure P-1 shows that affidavit of the plaintiff was also ready to be tendered into evidence. However, the same could not be tendered as the petitioner was busy in getting the costs deposited with the said Authority and in the meantime, evidence was closed by order of the Court. It has been contended that the petitioner is the plaintiff and if one opportunity is not granted to him, he will suffer an irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in any manner. No doubt, the plaintiff-petitioner was some what C.R. No. 2693 of 2011 -2- negligent in not concluding the evidence but if one more opportunity is granted to him for the purpose, no prejudice would be caused to the defendant who can well be compensated with costs. Rules and procedure are hand-maid of justice and are meant for enhancing the same and not to scuttle it. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside. The trial Court is directed to afford one effective opportunity to the petitioner to conclude his entire evidence. The order passed is, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the opposite side. 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, he will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondent that if he feels dissatisfied with this order, he may move an application to recall the same. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. April 26, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE