HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON ('227) No. 6644 of2008 PETmONERS : 1, Bhola Ram, aged 45 years, son of Shri Chaitu Satnami. 2. Bishambhar, aged 43 years, son of Shri Chaitu Satnami. Both are residents of village Sukulkari, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Plaintifis) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. Sundar Singh, aged 75 years, son ofShri Saatram, caste Punjabi, resident of Bydhikhar (at present resident ofvillage MalhM) Tahsil Masturi, Distriet Bilaspur(C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh through the Distriet Collector, Bilaspur. 3. Jila SaUKari Bhumi Viash Bank, Branch Masturi, Tafasil Masturi,DistrictBilasptu-!(e.G.) (Etefendants) WRITPETITIQNIJNDERAR'riCLE 227 OI-' THE GONSTrTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'Ue ShriSatish K. Aenflurtri, J. Present: ShriSptanafli'Veraia,Advoeatefbrtlieipetitioners. Shri A.S.K^tihwalia, Dy. AidvocateiGenfiFal.fiaFtheState, ORALOROER (Passed on 27ttl dayofNoyember,2008) 1. By this petition, tfae petitioners challenge the legality and validity ofthe order dated 23.7.2008 (Annexure P/4) passed m Civil Suit No. 36-A/2006, passed bythe Di Civil Judge, CIass II, Bilaspur. 2. The brieffacts, in nutshell, are that the plamtiffs (petitioners hereia) filed a civil suit being No. 36-A/2006 for declaration of title and peralanent mjunctionagainstthedefendaiits(respOndeiitsherem)mrelationtostiTyey No. 482/4, 482/5, 493/5, 703/2 and'TO5,admeasuring total area ^f 3.67 acres situated at village Sukulkari, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur. Summons were served to the defendants. The defendants appeared'and liled their written statements. The respondent-State failed to appeaT, hence, it was proceededex-parte. On consideration ofthe contents efthe plaint. and written statement, issues were franed and the plaintiffs were du'epted to examine fheir witaesses. The plamtifFs filed affidavits of Ihe witneteses under Order 18 Rule 4 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (fbr short C.P.C.) as exanunation-in-ohief. The case was fixed fqr crpss-examinaitipn •^ t:^ ; 31 \ -2- i 1 ofthe plaintiffs' witnesses on 04.12.2007. Qn the said date, neither fhe defendant No. 1 nor his eounsel appeared, therefore, the court below proceeded ex-parte against him. The defendant No. 3 cross-examiaed the plaintiffi' witnesses. Thereafter, opportunity of the plaiatifFs aad the defendant No. 3 to examine witnesses were closed and the case was fixed for final arguments. The defendant No. I*' on 26.12.2Q07 iiled an application imder Qrder 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte proceedmgs which was opposed by the plaintiffs and prayed for rejection of fhe said application. The court below, on 18.01.2008, allowed the applicationofthedefendant No. 1 imposing a cost ofRs. 500/- payable on the next date ofhearing i.e. on28.01.2008. It was observedthat m default, the order setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, shall autQmaticatly stand canceUed. Onthe said dafe, neiflier the defendant N6. 1 appearsd nor paid Ihe aforesaid amount to the plaintifEs. 'Thereafter, on several dates bf hearing, tfae defsndant No. Idid not eomply wiftt the order <lated 18.01.2008. TheplamtifiEs, oa29.0A.20Q8 filedanapplication underseetion 151 pfthe C.P.G. (Aimexure P/3). and prayed thatthe defendant No. 1 be restrained fi-omltaking part in &rther proceedings of the suit. The said application was rejectedon 23.7.2008 andfhedefendant No.lwasallowed to continue in furtherproceedin^. Hence, this petition. 3. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioners submits tfaat tfae court below, by its order dated 18.01.2008, allowedttiedefendaatNo.ltotakspattin the further proceedings offhesuitonacaiditioHofpaymeHtofasum of Rs. 500/- on fhe next date ofheam^. However, fhe defendant No. 1, on several dates, neither appeared nor paid the ^aid Mnount to &e plamtifi.s- petitioaers. Hence, fhe order ofsetting aside Ihe ex-parte proeeedmgs has automatically come to an end. Shri Venaafurfeer submtethat Bieicourt below has exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing tiie defendant No.l to take part in fhe further proceedin^ ofthe suit. The said cwder is liable|to be quashed. 4. Havmgbeard leamed counsd appeariag •for the petitionefs^ perused the pleadings and dQcuments appemled thereto, it is evideM that fe|t;ouTt below pennitted fhe defendant No. 1 to partieipate in the proeeediagg to subserve thejustiee. Sinee fh®Tesoondents-defeadants have alrea^sibeen ir:il: -3- 7. permitted to participate ia the proceedings, at this stage, dismissing the order pennittingthe defendante to participate in the proceedings would be counter-productive and contraryto dispensationofjustice. It is well-settled that the procedural mles are the handmaids ofjustice. The objeet of procedureis to advance Ifae cause ofjustice. The justice can not w'-. "• • • •• besubservient to procedural rule. The procedureal rule can not come in Ihe way of dispensation ofjustice. Ordinarily fhe other party shpuld not be deniedthe opportunity ofparticipatinginthe processofdispensation. Once the defendant No. 1 has been permittedto participate in the proceedmgs, he should not be thrown out on technical groimd. This Court, m exercise of its supervisory jurisdiGtion' under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should refrain iteelf from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except insuch cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity orjurisdictional error is writ large on the face ofthe record, whiehis not inthe presentcase. In view of fhe foregoing aid for tiie reasons mentioned hereinabove, fhe petition is disnussed. Noorder asto eosts. Comequently, I.A. No. 1, for grant of ad-interim relief, also stands dismissed. : I Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Anslt: