- (1.) Vide order dated 4.3.2005, evidence of the petitioners was closed by order. Counsel for the petitioners states that against them a suit for declaration was filed, wherein respondent-plaintiff has claimed possession on the basis of ownership. Counsel states that if the petitioners are not allowed to conclude the evidence, they shall suffer an irreparable loss. It has further been stated that the petitioners need only one opportunity to complete their evidence. Trial is stated be pending on 21.3.2006 and if opportunity be granted to the petitioners, they shall complete their evidence to the said date.
(2.) Prayer made vehemently has been opposed by the counsel appearing for the respondent.
(3.) This Court feels that rules 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 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 on 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 SCC 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 construed as to advance the cause of justice. In view of the ratio of the judgment referred to above and the facts of the present cases, this revision is allowed and order under challenge, is set aside and the trial Court is directed to give one opportunity to the petitioners to complete their entire evidence on 21.3.2006 at their own risk responsibility, failing which this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Order passed is subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- as costs to be paid by the petitioners to respondent No. 1 plaintiff on the next date of hearing before the trial Court. Copy of the order be given dasti under the signature of Court Reader.;