Procedural law should be construed liberally to achieve the ends of justice, and parties should be compensated with costs for any lapses.

Arvind Kumar, J. - The present petitioner is the defendant in the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,21,719/- filed by the plaintiff respondent Jagjit Singh, on the basis of pronote and receipt. The plaintiff closed his evidence on 26.2.2004. During the course when defendant was leading his evidence, the defendant moved an application to get his signatures compared on the alleged pronote and receipt. The Court sent the same to FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh. The report was received from the said quarters, which was adverse to the case of the plaintiff and thus, led the plaintiff to the institution of an application seeking permission to obtain the photographs of questioned signatures of the defendant appearing on pronote, receipt and the agreement and that of his standard signatures appearing on written statement and power of attorney filed by the defendant in favour of his counsel, for getting them compared. This application was filed when the case was at the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments. Though the application was opposed on the ground of being filed at a belated stage and that no such permission can be granted as the plaintiff had not examined the expert at the time when he led evidence in affirmative, but the learned trial court allowed the application vide order dated 24.3.2007, which has been impugned in the present revision petition. By dint of the impugned order, the learned trial Court permitted the plaintiff to obtain the photographs of the admitted signatures as well as disputed signatures with the help of photographer in the presence of Ahlmad in the working hours of the Court.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the paper-book carefully.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has argued that to lead evidence in rebuttal, the plaintiff was required to reserve the right to do so before the evidence of defence commences, but since it was not done in the present case by the plaintiff, as such he cannot be permitted to lead evidence on the issue, the burden to prove which was on the plaintiff and has referred to the case reported as Surjit Singh & Ors. v. Jagtar Singh & Ors., 2007(1) RCR(Civil) 537 P&H (DB)) and Jagdev Singh & Ors. v. Darshan Singh & Ors., 1998(2) PLR 484. There is no dispute to the proposition of law that the plaintiff cannot as a right lead evidence in rebuttal on the issue, the onus to prove of which was on him, but it is to be seen in the light of facts and circumstances of each case.

4. The plaintiff though had been negligent in leading the evidence in affirmative which he wants to produce now but for such a lapse the other side can well be compensated with costs. At the same time it is basic rule of law that wherever end of justice demands, the procedural law should be construed liberally to achieve such ends rather than to scuffle the parties right at the trial stage and prevent them from leading complete evidence in support of their case. This would be more true in the cases where such evidence relates to the basic issue to be determined by the Court. The plaintiff-respondent does not stand to gain by delaying the matter as it is his suit for recovery of money. Moreover, no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the defendant by allowing the said application by the learned trial court, who obviously has an opportunity to cross-examine the witness, so produced by the plaintiff in rebuttal. The High Court would not interfere with an order unless the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to party against whom it was made.

5. In view of the discussion above, this Court is of the considered view that the approach of the learned trial court while allowing the impugned application of the plaintiff, is neither perverse nor absurd. However, this Court is of the view that there must be a reasonable costs to compensate the defendant, which aspect has not been looked into by the court below. T