- (1.) Vide order under challenge, evidence of the petitioner was closed by order. Its counsel contends that the suit is for permanent and mandatory injunction and if it is not allowed to complete its evidence, an irreparable loss shall be caused. Counsel further contends that the trial is now fixed for March 8, 2006, and the petitioner shall produce its entire evidence, in Court, on the date fixed, at its own risk and responsibility.
(2.) Counsel prays that may be subject to payment of costs, one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to conclude its evidence. 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.;