Honble YAMIN, J.–Heard with the consent of both the parties. (2). The short question is whether the evidence closed by the trial Court after giving defendant some opportunities should be opened or not ? Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court in Civil Revision No.746/96 decided on 10.11.98 and Civil Revision No. 221/94 decided on 10.11.98 as well as in Civil Revi- sion No. 318/98 decided on 25.8.98 at Jaipur Bench and Civil Revision No. 900/98 decided on 15.9.98 at Jaipur Bench has allowed the party to lead evidence after many opportunities were given by the trial Court and then evidence was shut. According to him the rules of procedure are handmaids to justice and not to hamper it. He has submitted that as a general rule evidence should not be shut-out and fullest opportunities should be given to the parties. For this proposition reliance has been placed on Balwant Singh Bhagwan Singh & Anr. vs. Firm Ram Singh Baldev Kishen (1). In this citation the following observations are material :- ``Promptitude and despatch in the dispensation of justice is desirable thing but not at the cost of justice. All rules of procedure are nothing but handmaids of justice. They cannot be construed in a manner which would hamper justice. As a general rule, evidence should never be shut out. The fullest opportunity should always be given to the parties to give evidence if the justice of the case requires it. It is immaterial if the original omission to give evidence or to deposit pro- cess fee arises from negligence or carelessness. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission to give evidence or to deposit process fee, it should be allowed if that can be done without injustice to the other side. There is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs. (3). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relied on LIC of India vs. Smt. Jyoti Chhatwani (2) Dayal Ram vs. Prabhu Ram (3) and has submitted that no further opportunity can be given to the defendant to lead evidence because he has been very careless. He further submitted that view of this Court in these citations was that evidence once closed should not be reopened. (4). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised before me. He further submitted that view of this Court in these citations was that evidence once closed should not be reopened. (4). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised before me. There is not doubt that the defendants in the case in hand were careless but for that the plaintiff can be compensated by payment of cost. As observed in Balwant Singh Bhagwan Singh & Anr. vs. Firm Ram Singh Baldev Kishen (supra) the general rule is that evidence should not be shut out and fullest opportunity be given to the parties for evidence if the justice of the case requires it. In Civil Revision No. 318/98, decided on 25.8.98 at Jaipur Bench it was observed that conduct of the defendant can be said to be grossly negligent but he should not suffer by not leading evidence. I am of the view that rules of procedure are handmaids to do justice and not to hamper it. Of course the defendant was careless in not producing evidence on seven occasions but this Court in Civil Revision No.318/98 reopened the evidence though there was lapse on the part of defendant of ninteen opportunities. The opposite party was compensated by cost. (5). In this view of the matter the revision petition is allowed. The order of the trial Court to close the evidence is set aside. Petitioner defendant Smt. Badami is given opportunity to lead evidence on cost of Rs. 1,500/-. Both the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 15.12.98. The defendant petitioner will appear on that date alongwith her witnesses before the trial Court. No further adjournment shall be given by the trial Court. If the statements of defendant and her witnesses are not completed on 15.12.98 then the case will be taken up on next day and the evidence of the defendant and her witnesses shall be completed within two days. If the defendant does not appear alongwith witnesses on 15.12.98 the evidence of the defendant shall be closed.