JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. Heard. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties these petitions, being connected matters, are taken up for final disposal by a common order. 3. There is no denying the fact that the respondent herein, in CMPMO Nos.189 and 218 of 2012, Smt. Kimtu Devi, is owner of the land in question, which was leased by her to the petitioner in those petitions, President Shastra Society for Health & Local Transformation, Rehabilitation. However, unfortunately, later on disputes arose between the parties, leading to litigation in the nature of a suit for possession and recovery of lease money amounting to `3,25,000/- (three lac twenty five thousand), which is pending trial in the learned Court below. The suit, which was at the stage of defence evidence, is now fixed for final arguments, pursuant to failure on the part of the petitioner to lead evidence in defence despite as many as three opportunities having been granted. The order dated 4.6.2012, closing defence evidence is under challenge in CMPMO No.189 of 2012. 4. CMPMO No.218 of 2012 arises out of order dated 12.4.2012, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for amendment of the written statement has been declined by the learned trial court. 5. Prayer of the petitioner in CMPMO No.223 of 2012, Smt. Kimtu Devi for attachment before judgment has been declined by the learned trial court, vide order dated 9.8.2011 and the same is subject matter of the said petition. 6. It is fairly settled that in order to advance the interests of justice, it is always desirable that any lis is heard and disposed of on merits without laying undue stress on procedural formalities, unless the party seeking indulgence of the Court is otherwise disentitled for exercise of judicial discretion in this regard due to his/her act and conduct. Insofar as the question of granting any further opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence is concerned, the comparative hardship and prejudice, if any, apprehended by the respondent, can very well be taken care of by putting terms as to payment of costs. 7. Accordingly, order dated 4.6.2012, closing defence evidence is set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is granted one more opportunity to lead evidence in defence, for which the learned trial court shall fix a date and call upon the petitioner to produce the entire evidence on that date. 7. Accordingly, order dated 4.6.2012, closing defence evidence is set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is granted one more opportunity to lead evidence in defence, for which the learned trial court shall fix a date and call upon the petitioner to produce the entire evidence on that date. However, in case prayer for issuance of dasti summons to the witnesses is made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the learned trial court favourably. In case the petitioner fails to lead defence evidence on the date so fixed, no request for adjournment in that regard shall be considered by the learned trial court in any circumstances, whatsoever. However, it shall be subject to costs of `3,000/- (three thousand), which shall be tendered before the learned trial court on the day defence evidence is examined. 8. As far as the prayer for amendment of the written statement is concerned, the same is prima facie, shown to be pursuant to some judgments rendered by the Courts, including this Court. Though, it is projected on behalf of the other side that such judgments, being per se admissible in evidence, can very well be tendered by the petitioner while leading evidence in defence, yet the fact remains that any evidence beyond pleadings is of no consequence. Thus, it shall be expedient and in the interest of justice that the prayer of the petitioner for amendment of the written statement is granted, though again subject to costs of `3,000/- (three thousand), which shall also be tendered in the manner as stated hereinabove. Resultantly, order dated 12.4.2012, whereby the prayer for amendment of the written statement was declined, shall also stand set aside. 9. As regards the prayer for attachment before judgment, suffice it to say that one of the prayers in the suit being for recovery of a sum of `3,25,000/- (three lac twenty five thousand), as arrears of lease money, it shall also be expedient and in the interest of justice so as to obviate the possibility of the petitioner disposing its assets with a view to defeat the decree that may ultimately be passed, that attachment before judgment qua that property is passed in supersession of the order dated 9.8.2011, of the learned trial court, disallowing such prayer. Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly. Consequently, the property belonging to the respondent, mentioned in para 4 of the application under Order 38 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for attachment before judgment, shall stand attached till final disposal of the suit. However, as prayed for by the learned counsel for the respondent, in case at any stage, the respondent intends to deal with this property in any other manner than as ordained by this Court in this order, he shall be at liberty to approach the learned trial court and in case the respondent deposits the amount of outstanding arrears of lease money in the learned trial court and furnishes security for payment of unpaid/unclaimed use and occupation charges on and with effect from the date of termination of lease to the satisfaction of the learned trial court, the attachment shall stand withdrawn. 10. The petitions as also CMP No.801 of 2012 for interim stay, in CMPMO No.189 of 2012, stand disposed of in the above terms. The learned counsel for the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 5th March, 2013. In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of inter se dispute between the parties, the learned trial court is requested to conclude the trial and decide the suit as expeditiously as possible, but latest in any case by 31st December, 2013.