'3^. Ci tTOI r»i IAT LM Al ;^' of200S iiill Defendant RESPONDENTS ian, S/o Late Chhaua, aged about 43 years, Ri'o v'iliage Chainpur, PS Jhiimiii, Tahsli Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (CG). VERSUS iefenaant 1. Anandl, S/o Late Bargu, agea about 50 years. 2. Devi/an, Si'o late Bargu, aged about 46 years. 3. Banshram, S/o !ate Bargu, aged about 43 years. 4. Basant, S/o iate Bargu, aged about 40 years. 5. Feku Ram, S/o late Bairam, aged about 35 years. Respondent No. 1 to 5 R/o village Chainpur, Tahsii Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (CG): 6. State of Chhattisgarh through the Coliector, Surguja, CG. (WRIT PETiTiON UNDER ARTSCLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF iNDIA) (SB: Hon'bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri. J;) Present: S'nri Ashok Shukia, Advocaie for the petitioner. Shn J.K. Shashtri, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 to 5. S'nri Vivek Sharma, Panel Lavfyer for the State/responden' .6. (Passed on this 26'" day of November, 2008) With the consent ofthe parties, the maaer is taken up for hearing finaliy. By this petition, the petitioner/defendant No. 1 challenges the iegality and validity of the order dated 02.08.2006 (Annexure Pl'3) passed by the Civil Judge, Class-ii, Surajpur, in Civii Suit No. 44-A'97 (Anandi and Others Vs. Bigan and Another) whereby, the application ofthe petitloner/defendant No.1, filed under Order IX Ruis 7 of the Code of Civii Procedure,1908 (for short 'CPC') for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings drawn against the petitioner, has been rejected. The brief facts, in nutsheii, for adjudication of the case, are that the piaintiffs/respondent No 1 to 5 have filed a civii suit against the petitioner for canceiiation of settlement deed before the Court beiow. After service of notsce the det'endant No. 1/petitioner fiied his v/ritten statement and participated in the proceedings. Due to non-appearance of the petltioner an 4. ex-parte proceeding was drawn against him on 27.10.2005. The petitioner filed an application for setting aside the said ex-parte proceedings on 11.07.2006 (Annexure P/1) stating that the petitioner was not physicaliy weli since 12.07.2005 therefore, he could not appear before the Court below. Learned counsei further submits that the petitioner is ready to compensate the deiay by paying costs. The respondent No. 1 to 5 herein fiied their reply to the said appiication. The Court beiow after hearing the parties, rejected the prayer made by the petitioner by order dated 02.08.2006 (Annexure P/3). Thus, this petition. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that the Court beio-w has not appreciateci the facts and circumstance of the case in its true perspective. Despite the submission made by the petitloner that he was not physicaiiy well, the court below has rejected the application of ihe petitioner on technicai ground, which is not at aii sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel prays that the ex-parte proceedings drawn against the petitioner may be set aside. Per contra, learned counsei appearing for the respondent No. 1 to 5 supported the impugned order and contended that the court below has righSiy rejected the application of the petitioner. 1 have heard iearned counsel appearing forthe parties, perused the pieadings and documents appended tnereto. Whlle rejecting the appSication of the petitioner, the court belov/ has obsen/ed that the petitioner has not fiied any medicai certificate or any documents wlth regard to his aiiment, which is a technicai reason and the same is sufficient and cogent for rejecting the prayer made by the petitloner. it is we!i settied that the procedural ruies are the handmaids of justice. The object of procedure is to advance the cause ofjustice. The ruies cannot be subservient to procedurai rule. The procedural rule cannot come in the way of dispensation of justice. Ordlnariiy the other party shouid not be denied the Sahu opportunity of participating in the process of dispensation. Having applied the wetl settled iaw to the facts of this case, once th6 petitioner/defendant has been permitted to participate in the proceedings, he shouid not be thrown out on technicai ground. The conduct of the petitioner/defendant may be condoned on payment of costto the respondents. In view of the foregoing, the order dated 02.08.2006 is set aside and the court beiow is dit'ected to proceed with thss matter in accordance with iaw. in the result, the petition is ailowed subject to payment of cost assessed at Rs. 2500/- within a period ofiwoweeks. Sd7- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge •) -fc"i