- (1.) Vide order dated January 18, 2006, evidence of the petitioner plaintiff was closed by order. Counsel states that due to gap of communication with his counsel, the petitioner failed to bring evidence in Court on the date fixed. It has further been stated that the suit of the petitioner is for recovery of Rs. 3,60,264/- and if he is not allowed to complete his evidence, his suit is bound to fail and he shall suffer an irreparable loss. Trial is stated to be pending on March 6, 2006.
(2.) An undertaking has been given by the petitioner through his counsel that he shall produce his evidence on the date fixed at his own risk and responsibility. 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.;