Judgment:
Sham Sunder, J.
1. This revision-petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 11.09.08, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phillaur, vide which, it closed the evidence of the plaintiff, by order.
2. A suit for recovery of Rs. 2,12,000/-, was filed, by the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, on the basis of a cheque dated 04.07.02, against the defendants. The plaintiff, could not produce evidence, despite last opportunity, having been granted, to him. Accordingly, vide order dated 11.09.08, his evidence, was closed.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner.
4. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.
5. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the revision-petitioner, had instituted two civil suits, bearing Nos.493/03 and 494/04, titled as 'Kuljit Singh Bassi v. The Janta Express Bus Service. The first suit, was for the recovery of Rs. 8,000/-, and the second suit, was for the recovery of Rs. 2 lacs, with interest. He further submitted that both the suits, were pending, in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phillaur, and were at the stage of evidence. He further submitted that the Counsel for the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, in the trial Court, filed separate affidavits of the witnesses, in the shape of examination-in-chief. He further submitted that those witnesses, were produced for cross-examination. He further submitted that though the witnesses, were cross-examined, in a suit for the recovery of Rs. 8,000/-, however, on account of lack of diligence, on the part of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, those witnesses, could not be produced for cross-examination, in civil suit, for the recovery of Rs. 2 lacs. He further submitted that sufficient opportunity, was not granted to the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, to lead his evidence. He further submitted that the order, being illegal, was liable to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that, despite granting last opportunity, to the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, he did not produce the evidence. He further submitted that, thus, there was no alternative with the Court below, than to close his evidence. He further submitted that the Court below, was not required to give adjournment, on the asking of any of the parties. He further submitted that the order, being legal and valid, was liable to be upheld.
7. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. The suit, was filed, in the year 2003. However, it was not recorded, in the order, as to how many opportunities, were granted, to the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, to lead and conclude his evidence. It is only recorded, in the order impugned, that several opportunities, were granted to the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, to lead his evidence, but he did not conclude the same. There is nothing, on the record, that the plaintiff, was imposed costs, for not producing his evidence, from time to time, and he was put on caution that, in case, the evidence, was not produced, the same, would be closed. The order, closing the evidence of a party, has got far reaching consequences. The main object of the Court, is to do substantial justice. The procedural wrangles, cannot be allowed, to stay, in the way of the grant of substantial justice. When the procedural wrangles and substantial justice, are pitted, against each other, then the latter will prevail over the former. In the instant case, in my considered opinion, sufficient opportunity, was not granted to the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, to produce and conclude his evidence. At the same time, it could not be said that the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, was not at fault. It is also settled principle of law, that every lis, should be decided, on merits, and short-cut methods, should not be adopted, for the purpose of putting an end to the litigation, by the Courts. The principle of law, laid down, in State of Punjab v. Shamlal Murari A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1177, was to the effect that, the procedure is, in the ultimate, the hand-maid of justice, and not its mistress, and is meant to advance its cause, and not to obstruct the same. A procedural rule, therefore, has to be liberally construed, and care must be taken, that so strict an interpretation be not placed thereon, whereby, technicality may tend to triumph over justice. It has to be kept in mind, that an overly strict construction of procedural provision may result in the stifling of the material evidence of a party, even if, for adequate reasons, which may be beyond his control. We must always remember that procedural law is not to be a tyrant, but a servant, not an obstruction, but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the hand-maid, and not mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant, in the administration of justice. If the breach can be corrected, without injury to a just disposal of the case, the Court should not enthrone a regulatory requirement, into a dominant desideratum. After all, the Courts are to do justice, not to wreck this end product on technicalities. In my considered opinion, the Court below, was wrong, in closing the evidence of the plaintiff/revision-petitioner. On account of this reason, manifest injustice, stood occasioned, to the plaintiff, as his lis was decided, not on merits, but by default. Therefore, in my opinion, in the larger interests of justice, it is a fit case, in which, reasonable opportunity, is required to be granted, to the plaintiff, to lead his evidence, though the opposite party, can be compensated, by way of costs.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is accepted. The orders impugned, passed by the Court below, are set aside. The plaintiff/revision-petitioner, shall be granted two effective opportunities, to produce the evidence, by the trial Court, which shall commence, after 14.10.09, meaning thereby, that the adjournment, which is to be granted, on 14.10.09, would be the first opportunity. It shall be the responsibility of the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, to produce the entire evidence, on two dates, and, in case, he failed to do so, then the trial Court, shall be, at liberty to close the same. After the evidence is closed by the plaintiff, reasonable opportunity shall be granted to the defendants/respondents, to lead their evidence, and thereafter, the case, shall be decided, in accordance with the provisions of law. However, the revision-petitioner, is burdened with costs of Rs. 10,000/-, for causing delay, to a great extent, in the disposal of the case. The payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/-, shall be a condition precedent, to the leading of evidence. The parties, are directed to appear, in the trial Court, on 14.10.09, at 10.00 AM sharp.