IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.3114/2009 Date of Decision: 27.5.2009. M/s Khem Chand Bahadarchand Ahuja and sons ..........Petitioner. Versus Gobind Parkash and others ..........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.Vikas Kumar,Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). Kaushalya Devi-plaintiff (represented through her LRs-respondents herein) filed a suit for recovery of Rs.79,073.25 from the defendants-petitioners. The suit was instituted on 7.4.2001. On the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Plaintiff's evidence was closed on 30.10.2008. Evidence of defendant-petitioner commenced on 5.11.2008. It is stated that defendant-petitioner has already examined two DWs and even his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit has also been tendered. Evidence of the petitioner was closed by the Court order on 17.4.2009. Hence the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the suit with the intervention of common friends talks for compromise were going on and accordingly the case was got adjourned on joint request made by the counsel for the parties. Unfortunately, the compromise talks failed and the case was listed for remaining DWs. It is submitted that only cross examination of the petitioner remains to be conducted as also of another witness namely Bhagirath, who could not appear on 17.4.2009 due to his indisposition and a medical certificate to that effect was also produced before the learned trial Court. In these circumstances, one last opportunity to conclude the entire CR NO.3114/2009 2 evidence of the defendant-petitioner is prayed for. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but the suit as well. Heard learned counsel and perused the paper book. It is quite settled that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice to advance the same and not to subvert it. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and settled proposition of law in my considered opinion, it would be just and expedient to grant one last opportunity to the petitioner to conclude its entire evidence on the next date of hearing or on a date to be fixed by the learned Trial Court, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/-. Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed, impugned orders dated 17.4.2009(Annexure P/1) is set aside and petitioner is granted one last effective opportunity, at its own responsibility to conclude its entire evidence on the next date of hearing or on a date to be fixed by the learned Trial Court, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs, to be paid to the respondents 27.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge