- (1.) Vide order dated February 14, 2006, evidence of the petitioner was closed by order. Counsel states that on earlier two occasions, petitioner remained present in Court and has also submitted his affidavit. Only his cross-examination remains to be conducted. On the date fixed, he could not appear because of the sad demise of his mother-in-law. Counsel contends that the suit of the petitioner is for specific performance of an agreement to sell and if he is not allowed to complete his evidence, his suit is bound to be dismissed and in that event, he shall suffer an irreparable loss. He further states that now the trial is fixed for March 6, 2006, and the petitioner shall conclude his evidence on that date. Only one opportunity be granted to him, may be subject to payment of costs.
(2.) This Court is of the view that Rules and procedure are handmaid of justice. These are meant to enhance its cause 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 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."
(3.) View extracted above, was reiterated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in N.Balajit v. Virender 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.;