CRP 270/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE T.VAIPHEI Heard Mr. G.N.Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the petitioner assisted by M s. J Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.7.2010 passed by the learned Ci vil Judge (Sr.Division) in Misc.(J) Case No.72 of 2010 rejecting his application for setting aside the order directing that the suit be proceeded against him e x-parte. The case of the petitioner is that he could not file the written statem ent or appear before the trial court on the date fixed for hearing due to mistak e of date. The application was apparently contested by the respondent by contend ing that no cause was assigned by the petitioner for his non appearance or for h is inability to file the written statement on that day. The trial court accepted the objection of the respondent and accordingly rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that there is no provisions under Order 13 Rule 9 of the CPC for entertaining the application of the petitioner as the same dealt wit h written admitted documents. The trial court also took the view that the petit ion was not filed by the petitioner within the period of limitation prescribed b y law nor was any application for condonation of delay was filed by the petition er. The trial court also dis-believed the plea of the petitioner that he mistook the date of appearance. In my considered opinion, the trial court has taken hyper-technical view of the matter and in the process has acted arbitrarily in rejecting the application o f the petitioner. Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC deals with the procedure where dependent appears on the day of adjourned hearing and assigns good cause for previous non-appearance. The undisputed facts on record is that the petitioner appeared before the trial court on the next date of hearing i.e. the adjourned date of hearing and simult aneously filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte proceeding. That being the position, the trial court should not have non-suited the petition er by overlooking the provisions of Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. Procedural law are the hand maid of justice and not mistress of justice. I appreciate the anxiety of the trial court to avoid any delay in the disposal of the suit. However, justi ce hurried is also justice buried. Unless the petitioner is demonstrably proved to be adopting dilatory tactics to delay the speedy disposal of the suit, wh ich is not obviously the case herein, he ought to have been allowed to contest the suit on merit. In my judgment, the trial court has failed to exercise the j urisdiction vested in it by law in rejecting the application of the petitioner . For what has been stated above, this revision petition succeeds. The impugned or der dated 3.7.2010 is hereby set aside. The trial court shall now proceed with t he trial of the suit by allowing the petitioner to contest the suit on merit.The petitioner shall appear before the trial court on 11.10.2010 and positively fil e his written statement of defence on that day. Needless to say, the trial court shall make an attempt to dispose of the suit a s early as possible preferably within a period of six months from today. No costs.