Judgment 1. Vide order dated 10/1/2006, evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff was closed by order. Counsel states that his suit is for injunction and if he is not allowed to conclude his evidence, he shall suffer an irreparable loss, as his suit is likely to be dismissed. It has been stated at the bar that on the date fixed, petitioner could not appear in Court due to some gap of communication with his counsel. An undertaking has been given that the petitioner shall conclude his evidence on one date, which is now fixed before the trial Court i. e.1/3/2006. This Court feels that 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. " 3. 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. 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 petitioner to produce his entire evidence, at his own risk and responsibility, on the next date of hearing i. e.1.3.2006. Order passed is subject to payment of rs.3000/-, as costs, to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent-Municipal corporation on 1.3.2006. 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. Order passed is subject to payment of rs.3000/-, as costs, to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent-Municipal corporation on 1.3.2006. 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. 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. " 5. Liberty is granted to the respondents to get this revision petition revived if they feel dissatisfied with this order. Keeping in view of urgency, copy of the order be given dasti under signatures of Court Reader.