Judgment 1. Vide order dated 19.1.2006, evidence of the petitionerdefendant was closed by order. Counsel states that due to some gap of communication with the counsel before the Court below, the petitioner could not bring evidence on record on the date fixed. It has further been stated that suit against the petitioner is for possession and in case he is not able to conclude his evidence, the petitioner shall suffer an irreparable loss. A prayer has been made to grant one opportunity at the risk and responsibility of the petitioner to complete his evidence, may be subject to payment of costs. 2. This Court feels that the rules and procedures are handmaid of justice to enhance the same and not to subvert it. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Sardar Amarjit Singh kalra (dead) by LRs. And others V/s. Parmod Gupta (Smt.) dead) by LRs. 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. In view of the facts of the present case and ratio of the judgment referred to above, this revision petition is allowed, order under challenge is set aside and the trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to complete his evidence on 16.2.2006. Order passed is subject to payment of Rs.3000/- as costs, which shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondent/plaintiff 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. 4. At this stage, no notice is being issued to the opposite party, because if the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure and unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings. 4. At this stage, no notice is being issued to the opposite party, because if the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve 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 vs. 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 respondentworkman. 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 his behalf in this Court. The instant order by which the present petition is being disposed of fully protects the interest of the respondentworkman inasmuch as 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. " 5. Liberty is granted to the respondents to get this revision petition revived if they feel dissatisfied with this order.