Judgment Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Shimla on 23.11.2013, whereby the evidence of the petitioner has been ordered to be closed. 2. According to the petitioner, the case was listed for evidence for the first time on 23.7.2013 then on 26.8.2013, 2210.2013 and lastly on 23.11.2013 but the petitioner could not lead any evidence on the aforesaid dates. Though, the counsel representing the petitioner had sent a letter intimating the petitioner about the date of hearing and recording of his statement on 23.11.2013 but the said letter had not been received by him and, therefore, the petitioner could not lead evidence. There is no explanation as to why and how the petitioner was prevented from leading his evidence on the previous dates i.e. 23.7.2013, 26.8.2013 and 22.10.2013. 3. Ms. Rita Thakur learned vice counsel appearing for the respondents has strenuously opposed the petition by claiming that petitioner has been negligent in pursuing the case and therefore, the learned Tribunal below has rightly closed the evidence of the petitioner. 4. It is not disputed that petitioner would not gain anything by not leading evidence rather he will be running the risk of having the liability fastened upon him. Moreover, the courts are respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107 , has held as under:- “Even otherwise, it must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. It is settled law that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done.” This Court is not unmindful of the fact that the respondent/claimant has been dragged into unwarranted and otherwise avoidable litigation but at the same time he can definitely be compensated for the same. 5. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 23.11.2013 is set-aside. 5. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 23.11.2013 is set-aside. However, this would be subject to the cost of Rs.15,000/-, which shall be paid to the claimant/respondent Karam Chand Verma on or before the next date of hearing before the learned Tribunal and the parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 21.4.2014. 6. The learned Tribunal will fix a date for recording entire evidence of the petitioner. It is made clear that no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, subject to the aforesaid terms and conditions. Pending applications if any, also stands disposed of.