JASBIR SINGH, J. - (1.) VIDE order under challenge, evidence of the petitioner- plaintiff was closed by order. Counsel states that on the date fixed, petitioner, on account of some gap of communication with his counsel failed to bring evidence in Court. He further states that for summoning of two witnesses, who are yet to be examined, he moved an application. He also deposited the diet money in the Court. Despite that no summon was issued to those witnesses. It has further been averred the suit of the petitioner is for recovery and if he is not allowed to conclude his evidence, he shall suffer an irreparable loss.
(2.) BY referring to above-mentioned fact, a prayer has been made that may be, subject to costs, one effective opportunity be granted to the petitioner to conclude his evidence. Prayer made has been vehemently opposed by Shri Jatinder Singla, who has put up appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 7. This Courts feels that Rules and procedure are handmaid of justice to enhance the same and not to subvert it.
(3.) THEIR Lordships of Supreme Court in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) 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." ;