1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8268/2007 Krishna Kumar Garg Vs. Addl. District Judge No.1 Sriganganagar & anr. Date of Order :: 9th May 2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.R.K.Singhal for the petitioner Mr.J.K.Bhaiya for the respondent In the suit for specific performance of agreement as filed by the petitioner (CO No.13/2005) the affidavit in evidence on behalf of the defendant was filed on 09.10.2007 and the matter was adjourned to 01.11.2007 for cross- examination. On 01.11.2007, an application was moved on behalf of the defendant with the submissions that the affidavit dated 09.10.2007 was intended to be filed in the miscellaneous case relating to temporary injunction and it was prayed that said affidavit be placed in the file of miscellaneous case. The leaned Trial Court, by its order dated 01.11.2007 directed the affidavit to be placed in the file of related civil miscellaneous case and granted time to the defendant to adduce evidence and adjourned the matter to 28.11.2007. On 28.11.2007, an affidavit in evidence of the defendant was filed and the copy was given to the counsel for 2 the plaintiff and at request, the matter was adjourned for cross- examination to 06.12.2007. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the order dated 01.11.2007 as passed by the learned Trial Court with the submissions that the said order was passed even without supplying a copy of the application moved by the defendant and without affording the petitioner adequate opportunity of hearing. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has proceeded to pass the order in a hurry causing prejudice to the petitioner; and the learned Trial Court has ignored the intention of the defendant in placing on record an affidavit containing additional facts that were missing in the affidavit dated 09.10.2007. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having examined the material placed on record, this Court is not inclined to consider any interference in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. The rules of procedure are intended to sub-serve the cause of justice and are not intended to inflict punishment on the parties for every error made during the course of proceedings. When the defendant submitted before the Court on 01.11.2007 that the affidavit filed on the previous date was meant to be filed in the matter relating to temporary injunction and the learned Trial Court was satisfied with such 3 submissions and extended an opportunity to the defendant to file proper affidavit-in-evidence in the suit proceedings, such exercise cannot be said to be suffering from any jurisdictional error or leading to failure of justice. It is not the case of the petitioner that the two affidavits filed by the defendant carry any contradiction on assertion of facts by the defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to submit that paragraphs 10 and 11 of the later affidavit dated 28.11.2007 taken on record by the learned Trial Court as the affidavit-in-evidence under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC carry certain matters regarding which prayer for amendment as made by the defendant has already been disallowed; and such averments are beyond the scope of the pleadings in the written statement. Such aspect of the matter is not required to be gone into in this writ petition that has been preferred in challenge to the order dated 01.11.2007. The parties are free to adopt appropriate course before the learned Trial Court. Subject to the observations aforesaid, the writ petition stands rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK