Judgment:
Jasbir Singh, J.
1. Vide order dated 12.9.2005, evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff was closed by order. Counsel contends that petitioner needs only one opportunity to complete her entire evidence. Counsel informs this Court that the petitioner only intended to place on record some documents, which are per se admissible. He, by stating above mentioned facts, prays that may be, subject to payment of costs, one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to produce her entire evidence, as stated above, at her own risk and responsibility. It is apparent from records that the suit is for declaration, claiming ownership over the property, in dispute. This Court feels that if the petitioner is not allowed to complete her evidence, an irreparable loss is likely to be caused to her. Rules and procedure are handmaid of justice to enhance the same and not to subvert it.
2. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by L.Rs, and Ors. v. Parmod Gupta (Smt.) (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. : [2002]SUPP5SCR350 , 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.
View extracted above, was reiterated by their Lordships of Supreme Court in N. Balajit v. Virendra Singh and Ors. : (2004)8SCC312 , 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 effective justice but would be so construed as to advance the cause of justice.
3. Counsel further informs this Court that trial is now fixed for 4.10.2005 and petitioner shall put on record documents, as prayed by her, on the date fixed.
4. In view of facts and circumstances of this case, revision petition is allowed, order under challenge is set aside, trial Court is directed to give one more opportunity to the petitioner, to complete her evidence, by brining on record necessary documents. Order passed is subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/-, as costs, to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent on the date fixed before the trial Court. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to avail the opportunity granted by this Court, the revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
5. At this stage, no notice is being issued to the opposite party, because if the respondent is summoned to contest this litigation, it may involved huge expenditure and unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings. This view finds support from the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 9563 of 2002, Batala Machine Tools Workshop Co-op. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur rendered on June 27, 2002, in which it was held as under: -
We are conscious of the fact that the instant order is detrimental to the interest of the respondent-workman. We are also conscious of the fact that no notice has been given to the respondent-workman before the instant order has been passed. The reason for not issuing notice to the respondent-workman is to ensure that he does not have to incur unnecessary expenses in engaging counsel to appear on this behalf in this Court. The instant order by which the present petition is being disposed of fully protects the interest of the respondent-workman in asmuchas the amount determined by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur by its order dated 22.5.2002 has been required to be deposited by the petitioner-Management before the Labour Court/Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur.
Liberty is granted to the respondent to get this revision petition revived if he feels dissatisfied with this order.