Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. In view of the law laid down in the case of Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society Nagpur v. Swaraj Development and Ors., A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 2434, the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable. 2. Faced with this difficulty, the learned counsel subsists that the present revision petition be treated as petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The prayer made by the learned counsel is allowed. 3. The plaintiff-Punjab State Warehousing Corporation is the petitioner before this Court. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated April 11, 2002 passed by the learned trial Court whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-Corporation under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed. The plaintiff was declined the permission to lead additional evidence. 5. It was averred in the application that prior to the filing of the present suit another suit had been filed by the Corporation against the defendant at Ferozepur. Some documents have been placed on the file of the aforesaid suit of Ferozepur. However, officials of the department were under impression that the aforesaid documents had been led into evidence before the trial court at Zira. Later on when it transpired that the said documents had not been so placed in the proceedings before the trial court at Zira then the aforesaid application was filed for permitting the plaintiff-Corporation to lead additional evidence and to bring on record the aforesaid documents. 6. The application was contested by the defendant. The learned trial Court dismissed the aforesaid application by passing the impugned order. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with his assistant have also gone through the record of the case. 8. Although it is not in dispute that the case is already fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments and, therefore, is at a very advance stage of proceedings, however, the fact cannot be lost sight of that a mistake has actually occurred on behalf of the plaintiff-Corporation. The plaintiff of course has failed to produce some documents which it had produced before the proceedings in another suit pending between the parties at Ferozepur. 9. It is well settled that rules of procedure are mere hand maids of justice and a pragmatic approach has to be adopted while dealing with the rights of the parties. The plaintiff of course has failed to produce some documents which it had produced before the proceedings in another suit pending between the parties at Ferozepur. 9. It is well settled that rules of procedure are mere hand maids of justice and a pragmatic approach has to be adopted while dealing with the rights of the parties. The technicalities of procedure cannot be used to thwart the ends of justice. 10. In this view of the matter, I set aside the order dated April 11, 2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Zira and allow the present revision petition subject to payment of Rs. 5000/- as costs. The aforesaid costs shall be recovered by the plaintiff-Corporation from the official/s who has/have been responsible for not producing the said documents before the learned trial Court. Now the learned trial court shall give one opportunity on which date the plaintiff-Corporation shall be allowed to lead its entire evidence at its own responsibility. No further opportunity shall be granted to the plaintiff-Corporation in any manner. The entire evidence shall be lead by the plaintiff- Corporation without the assistance of the court. If the costs are not paid or evidence not led as aforesaid, the present revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.