Civil Revision No. 6706 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6706 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 2.12.2010. Naresh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Jamoti Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover Present:- Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Satish Goel, Advocate for the respondents. MAHESH GROVER, J (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.10.2009 vide which the petitioner has been declined the permission to lead additional evidence. The petitioner has set up the existence of a rent note dated 27.8.1982 which was exhibited during the course of proceedings. In order to prove the contents thereof, the witnesses by the name of Baij Nath and one legal representative of Radhey Shyam were required to be examined to support the case of the petitioner. Prior thereto the whereabouts of said witnesses could not be traced out and it is after some efforts the same has been done and thus they are necessary to be examined in support of the document which is already on record. He further contends that the circumstances mentioned in application fully satisfied the requirement of law as despite due diligence he was unable to produce the said witness. He thus prayed that if one opportunity is given, he shall be able to prove the contents of the document which is already on record. The prayer of the petitioner is opposed by learned counsel for the respondents who states that his prayer cannot be allowed as it will seriously prejudice his case. He contended that the petitioner has not been able to prove his case and having failed to establish the genuineness of the said document he cannot be permitted to produce any evidence at this stage. Civil Revision No. 6706 of 2009 (O&M) 2 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the petition deserves to succeed. The document is already on record and if the petitioner wants to prove the contents thereof, he has a right to do so. It is a settled principal of law that the procedure are a hand maiden of justice and the substantial right of a party should not be defeated by resorting to the technicalities of law. Since, the document is already on record, no prejudice is likely to be caused, if the petitioner is granted permission to prove the contents thereof by producing the necessary witnesses in this regard. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction that the trial Court shall grant only one opportunity to the petitioner to examine Baij Nath and legal representative of Radhey Shyam in support of his quest to prove the document Ex.D3. No further opportunity or indulgence shall be granted by the learned trial Court. The impugned order is set aside, subject to payment of Rs. 5000/- as costs. (MAHESH GROVER) 2.12.2010 JUDGE Reema