Judgment 1. Vide order, dated 1.2.2006, evidence of the petitioners/ claimants, was closed by order. Counsel states that by not bringing evidence in Court, the petitioners were not to gain anything, as their application, to claim compensation is pending before the Court below. It has been stated that due to gap of communication and financial constraints, evidence could not be brought in Court on the date fixed. An undertaking has been given that the petitioners need only one opportunity to complete their evidence at their own risk and responsibility. It has been prayed that may be subject to payment of costs, one opportunity be granted to them. This Court feels that the petitioners are the claimants and if they are not allowed to complete their evidence, their application to claim compensation is likely to be dismissed. 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 others V/s. Parmod Gupta (Smt.) dead) by l. Rs. 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. " View extracted above, was reiterated by their Lordships of supreme Court in N. Balajit V/s. Virendra Singh and others, (2004) 8 supreme Court Cases 312, 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 and effective justice but would be so construed as to advance the cause of justice. 3. In view of ratio of judgments, referred to above and facts of this case, revision petition is allowed, order under challenge, is set aside and the trial Court is directed to give one more opportunity to the petitioners to complete their evidence at their own risk and responsibility. 4. 3. In view of ratio of judgments, referred to above and facts of this case, revision petition is allowed, order under challenge, is set aside and the trial Court is directed to give one more opportunity to the petitioners to complete their evidence at their own risk and responsibility. 4. Petitioners shall put in appearance before the Court below on 27.2.2006 and then the trial Court shall provide them one opportunity after a gap of 15 days. 5. It is made clear that if the petitioners fail to avail the opportunity granted by this court, the revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Order passed is subject to payment of Rs.1500/-, as costs, to be paid by the petitioners to respondent No.2/ insurance company. 6. 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 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 his behalf in this Court. The instant order by which the present petition is being disposed of fully protects the interest of the respondent-workman 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/labourcum-Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur. " 7. Liberty is granted to the respondents to get this revision petition revived if they feel dissatisfied with this order. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.