IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M.No. 11556-CII of 2011 and C.R. No. 2581 of 2011 Date of decision: 3.5.2011 Ashok Kumar … Petitioner versus Narinder Kumar … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Raj Kapoor Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: C.M.No. 11556-CII of 2011: C.M. is allowed. Certified copies of orders dated 5.11.2009 and 16.4.2011 are taken on record as Annexures P-9 and P-10 respectively. C.R. No. 2581 of 2011: The present petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 31.10.2005. He is aggrieved with order dated 25.3.2011 by dint of which his evidence has been closed by order of the Court. Heard. The impugned order indicates that after having availed five effective opportunities, he has failed to conclude evidence. No doubt, the plaintiff was some-what negligent in not concluding his evidence but if one more opportunity is not granted to him, he shall suffer an irreparable loss. Only the examination-in-chief of the defendant has been recorded so far. Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, in all fairness, seeks one opportunity, may be subject to payment of costs. Rules and procedure are hand-maid of justice and are meant for enhancing the same and not to scuttle it. The dispute C.R. No. 2581 of 2011 -2- between the parties is required to be disposed of on merits and not on the basis of technicalities. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the order under challenge is set aside and the trial Court is directed to permit the plaintiff one effective opportunity for evidence and he will conclude his evidence on that date postively. The order passed is subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- as costs, to be paid by the plaintiff to the opposite side before leading evidence in the trial Court. 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. May 3, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE