IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4063 of 2011 Date of decision: 7.7.2011 Karam Singh … Petitioner versus Union of India and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Ms. Harmanpreet Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner filed an execution application on the basis of the award, which was dismissed on account of his failure to furnish the list of property. He approached this Court in civil revision which was disposed of on 15.9.2009 with a direction that in case the petitioner files an application for restoration of the execution application before the trial Court within 15 days, the trial Court will consider the same and if deemed appropriate, restore the execution application by giving one opportunity to the petitioner to furnish the list of property which is required to be submitted in the execution application. In pursuance of the said order, he filed an application and the learned Court below issued notice on filing of copy of application and process-fee, R.C. Etc. Petitioner failed to file the RC etc. and as such, the application was again dismissed vide the impugned order holding that there has been non-compliance of the order of the Court by not filing RC/AD. Hence, this revision. Heard. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not aware that RC/AD was also to be filed and due to that misunderstanding, RC/AD could no t be filed and therefore, the petitioner now undertakes to file the RC/AD along with an application if C.R. No. 4063 of 2011 -2- one opportunity for the purpose is granted, 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. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside; however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2500/- by the petitioner to be deposited with the District Legal Aid Fund. The trial Court is directed to afford one effective opportunity to the petitioner to file the RC/AD along with the application as prayed. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this revision is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, they will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that if they feel dissatisfied with this order, they may move an application to recall the same. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. July 7, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE