Civil Revision No. 1130 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1130 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.5.2010 Narinder Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Sanjay Gupta ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Balbir Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. S.D.ANAND, J. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to dispute that defendant-petitioner had available of seven adjournments to conclude his evidence, his grievance is that closure of evidence on the relevant date was legally inappropriate because the learned counsel representing him was busy in this Court and this fact had been duly announced to the learned Trial Court. It is also the grievance that learned Trial Court ought not to have acted vindictively and ought to have afforded opportunity to defendants-petitioners to conclude his evidence, particularly when the Court had adjourned the case for cross- examination to be directed at a particular witness. It is apparent from the order dated 7.4.2010 granted by a Coordinate Bench (Ajay Tewari, J,) of this Court that contesting respondents had been served for that date. Even on that date, none entered appearance on behalf of the respondents. The age old adage is that justice should not only be done but it should appear to have been done. Irrespective of the fact that the petitioner-defendant had availed of seven adjournments for concluding Civil Revision No. 1130 of 2010 -2- **** evidence, the learned Trial Court ought to have noticed that the defendant- petitioner was not in a position to conclude evidence on the relevant date because his counsel was busy before this Court. The Court ought to have adopted an indulgent view, particularly when it had decided to adjourn the case for cross-examination being directed at one indicated witness. The purpose of procedure law is to do substantial justice between the parties. Its purpose is not to punishing an erring party. A party cannot be punished on account of the absence of its counsel who is announced to be busy before the High Court. It is not a case wherein the counsel was being repeatedly absenting from the learned Trial Court. Things could be otherwise, if a party or a counsel are found to have made a mockery of a system by raising a repeated plea of his being busy either before the High Court or any other superior Court. The present is not a case of that category. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. The petitioner herein shall appear before the learned Trial Court on 19.5.2010 on which date he shall conclude his evidence. The matter is already reported to be pending for that date. The fact that evidence of defendants shall be recorded and concluded on that date may be notified to the party opposite before hand. May 10, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge