Jasbir Singh, J. - (1.) This judgment will dispose of two revision petitions- Civil Revision No. 3396 of 1994 and Civil Revision No. 3384 of 1994. For facility of reference, to dictate judgment, facts are mentioned from Civil Revision No. 3396 of 1994.
(2.) This revision petition has been filed against the order dated August 13, 1994, vide which right of the petitioner to lead evidence was restricted only with regard to issues No. 1 and 3 and he was allowed one date to complete his entire evidence.
(3.) Counsel for the parties heard. This Court feels that in view of facts and circumstances of the case, this revision petition deserves to be allowed. It is apparent from the records that the suit is pending, inter se the parties, since March 28, 1989. Initially, the issues were framed on December 6, 1989. Parties led evidence. In the meantime, petitioner-plaintiff moved an application to amend his plaint, with a view to add relief of possession, which was not earlier claimed by him. That application was rejected. The petitioner came in revision and while disposing of Civil Revision No. 834 of 1993 on November 3, 1993, he was allowed to amend his plaint subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as costs. It was further ordered that after filing of the written-statement, trial Court shall decide whether there is any necessity to lead further evidence or not. It appears that subsequent thereto, earlier issues were struck off and following fresh issues were recast on April 9, 1994 : "1. Whether the plaintiff is the adopted son of Sh. Gurbax Singh ? OPP 2. Whether Sh. Gurbax Singh executed a valid will in favour of plaintiff dated 11.12.87 ? OPP 3. If issue No. 2 is not proved, whether the plaintiff is the only natural heir of Gurbax Singh ? OPP 4. Whether the defendant dispossessed the plaintiff from the land in suit during the pendency of this suit ? OPP 5. If the above issue is not proved whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit land on the basis of his title? If so to what extent ? OPP 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for ? OPP 7. Whether this suit is not maintainable in the present form ?OPD 8. Relief ? Thereafter, the petitioner filed three applications before the trial Court, for framing of additional issues, for restoration of issues No. 3 and 4, which were earlier framed on May 18, 1994, and for amendment of issue No. 3, which was recast on April 9, 1994. All these three applications were dismissed vide order dated July 19, 1994. Petitioner came in revision and while disposing of Civil Revision No. 2911 of 1994 on July 27, 1994, following order was passed by this Court : "Heard. The main grievance of the plaintiff petitioner is that even after framing or recasting the issues, the learned trial court has gravely erred in law in not allowing opportunity to the plaintiff to produce further evidence. After framing of the fresh issues or recasting of the issues already framed, in the later contingency the burden of proof changes. In these circumstances, it is obligatory for the learned trial court to give adequate opportunity to the parties to produce their evidence for the just deicison of the case. The trial court is directed to give reasonable opportunity to both the parties to produce further evidence. With these observations this petition stands disposed of." Matter again went to the trial Court and on August 13, 1994, impugned order was passed, vide which right of the petitioner was restricted to lead evidence only on issues No. 1 and 3. This Court is of the view that the order passed is not justified. It is apparent from the perusal of issues framed vide order dated April 9, 1994, that decision on issue No. 3 is dependent upon issue No. 2. Some new issues were also framed vide order dated April 9, 1994. Under these circumstances, it was desirable for the trial Court to allow the parties to lead evidence on all the issues, especially keeping in view order passed by this Court on July 27, 1994. Rules are handmaid of justice. These are meant to enhance the cause of justice and not to scuttle the same. Their Lordships of the 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 SCC 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.";