Judgment 1. Vide order dated January 18, 2006, evidence of the petitioner plaintiff was closed by order. Counsel states that due to gap of communication with his counsel, the petitioner failed to bring evidence in Court on the date fixed. It has further been stated that the suit of the petitioner is for recovery of Rs.3,60,264/- and if he is not allowed to complete his evidence, his suit is bound to fail and he shall suffer an irreparable loss. Trial is stated to be pending on March 6, 2006. 2. An undertaking has been given by the petitioner through his counsel that he shall produce his evidence on the date fixed at his own risk and responsibility. Rules and procedure are handmaid of justice. These are meant to enhance its cause and not to scuttle the same. Their lordships of the 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. " 3 View extracted above, was reiterated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in N. Balajit V/s. Virender 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. 4. In view of facts of this case and ratio of judgments in the aforesaid cases, this revision petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside. Trial Court is directed to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to complete its evidence on March 6, 2006, at his own risk and responsibility. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to avail this opportunity, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Trial Court is directed to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to complete its evidence on March 6, 2006, at his own risk and responsibility. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to avail this opportunity, this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. This order is subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- as costs , which shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 Haryana state Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation, Chandigarh, on the date fixed before the trial Court. 5. 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 proceedings. This view finds support from a Division Bench judgment 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 inasmuchas 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. " Libery is granted to the respondents to get this revision petition revived, if they feel dissatisfied.