IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 82 of 2011. Decided on: 22.9.2011. State of HP .…Petitioner. Versus Ashok Kumar … Respondent. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Viond Thakur, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) CMP(M) No. 715 of 2011. Reply stands filed. Heard. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the main revision petition is condoned in view of the grounds stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit. The application stands disposed of. Civil Revision No. 82 of 2011. The respondent has filed a civil suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the petitioner- State. However, since the petitioner-State which is defendant before the learned Trial Court had failed to file written statement within the time provided under law, defence on its behalf was closed, vide the impugned order dated 20.5.2010. Thereafter the prayer on its behalf for filing written statement by condoning the delay was also declined, vide the impugned order dated 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 9.11.2010. Being aggrieved, it has filed the present revision petition before this Court, challenging the impugned orders dated 20.5.2010 and 9.11.2010. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents filed with the revision petition. 3. Rules of procedure are made for advancement of justice and not to thwart the same is a fairly settled legal position by now. It is further settled that it is always in the interest of justice that the matters are heard and decided on merits instead of disposing of the same on mere procedural technicalities. 4. In view of the above, I am satisfied that it shall be expedient and in the interest of justice that an opportunity is granted to the petitioner-State to defend the suit filed by the respondent against it pending trial before the learned Trial Court on merits. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 20.5.2010 and 9.11.2010 are quashed. Consequently, the petitioner-State is permitted to file written statement by condoning the delay in filing the same. 5. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. The parties through their learned counsel/Dy. Advocate General are directed to put in appearance before the learned Trial Court on 17th October, 2011. The petitioner-State shall file written statement on that date. However, it shall be subject to costs of Rs. 500/-. The costs shall be tendered in the learned Trial Court. “Copy dasti” (V.K. Sharma), Judge. 22nd September, 2011 (Krn Guleria)