- (1.) Vide order, under challenge, evidence of the petitioner was closed by order. Proceedings before the Rent Controller are now fixed for 6.3.2006 and an undertaking has been given on behalf of the petitioner that he shall complete his evidence on the date fixed. By referring to interim orders, counsel states that on two earlier dates, the petitioner was present in Court, however, the matter was adjourned on a request made by counsel for the opposite party. He further says that on the date fixed, petitioner failed to appear because of gap of communication between him and his counsel. It has further been stated that the petitioner is land owner, his application is for ejectment of the respondent-tenant and if he is not allowed to complete his evidence, he shall suffer an irreparable loss. A prayer has been made to grant only one opportunity to petitioner, may be subject to payment of costs, to conclude his evidence.
(2.) This Court feels that rules and procedure are handmaid of justice to enhance the same and not to subvert it. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by L.Rs. and others v. Parmod Gupta (Smt.) dead) by L.Rs. And others (2003) 3 S.C.C. 272, in para 26 of the judgment had opined as under:- "Laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose even an adjudication merits of substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and other laws. Procedure has always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not meant to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice." View extracted above, was reiterated by their Lordships of Supreme Court in N.Balajit v. Virendra Singh and others, (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 312, wherein after noting ratio of the judgment, referred to above, in para 10 of the judgment, it was observed that the procedure would not be used to discourage the substantial and effective justice but would be so construed as to advance the cause of justice.
(3.) In view of ratio of judgments, referred to above and facts of this case, revision petition is allowed, order under challenge, is set aside and the trial Court is directed to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to complete his evidence on the date fixed i.e. 6.3.2006. Order passed is subject to payment of Rs.4000/-, as costs, to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent- tenant. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to avail the opportunity granted by this Court, the revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.;