PARKASH SINGH Vs. CHINTA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Promptitude and despatch in the dispensation of Justice is a desirable thing but not at the cost of justice. All rules of procedure are nothing but hand -maids of justice. They cannot be construed in a manner which would hammer justice. As a general rule evidence should never be shut out. The fullest opportunity should always be given to the parties to give evidence, if the justice of the case requires it. It is immaterial if the original omission to give evidence or to deposit process fee arises from negligence or carelessness. As observed by the Calcutta High Court in Rupendra Deb Raikut s case AIR 1951 Cal 286, however, negligent or careless may have been the first omission and however, late the proposed evidence, it should be allowed if that can be done without injustice to the other side. There is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs.

(2.) The above observations made by Justice R.S.Sarkaria in case reported as Balwant Singh Bhagwan Singh & Others v. Firm Raj Singh Baldev Kishan, AIR 1969 P&H 197, apply to the facts of this case. The facts be noticed in brief.

(3.) Even though the petitioner had deposited the diet money at an initial stage, yet two witnesses, namely, Mast Ram and Sub Judge, who registered the Will were not permitted to appear in the witness box. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge in this petition.