HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.Nos.1863 and 1944 of 2007 Dt.3.11.2010 C.R.P.No.1863 of 2007 Between: M/s.Zenith Engineering Company Rep. by its G.P.A Holder Salauddin Mohammed Thakur, Visakhapatnam ..Petitioner And M/s.Vijay Tanks & Vessels Ltd., National High Way No.8, Bonkarada Baroda, rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director ..Respondent C.R.P.No.1944 of 2007 Between: C.R.P.No.1863 of 2007 Between: M/s.Zenith Engineering Company Rep. by its G.P.A Holder Salauddin Mohammed Thakur, Visakhapatnam ..Petitioner And M/s.Vijay Tanks & Vessels Ltd., National High Way No.8, Bonkarada Baroda, rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.Nos.1863 and 1944 of 2007 ORDER: Heard both the counsel. These two civil revision petitions are filed against the order dated 9.3.2007 in I.A.No.87 and 88 of 2007 in O.S.No.57 of 2002 on the file of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam, dismissing both the applications filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) C.P.C., to condone the delay in filing the documents within the prescribed time and to reopen the suit for adducing evidence. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the said suit and the suit was filed for grant of specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale and for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was adduced and P.W.1 was examined and after closing the evidence of P.W.1 it was posted for evidence of the defendant. The defendant filed chief affidavit on 18.11.2006 and for cross examination of D.W.1 the matter was posted to 13.11.2006 and on 27.12.2006 D.W.1 was cross examined. It is stated that the matter was posted for arguments on 19.1.2007 and from 19.1.2007 to 29.1.2007. At this stage, the petitioner-plaintiff himself filed I.A.No.87 of 2007 stating that he is G.P.A holder of the plaintiff company and as such he is well acquainted with the facts of the case and the plaintiff firm is assed to income tax and the plaintiff submitted income tax returns annually through M/s.Haindaday & Co., Tax Consultant, Mumbai, and the income tax papers of Zenith Engineering Company from 1966-97 to 2005-06 are held up in the present Tax Consultant Office and due to the said reason he could not file the same earlier. Recently, the plaintiff’s Tax Consultant located the records and handed over the same to the plaintiff and accordingly the plaintiff requested N.A.Srinivasan, one of the former Directors of the defendant company who is well acquainted with the transaction in the suit to give his evidence about the transactions and he accepted and is ready to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff firm. Accordingly, the said application was filed to condone the delay in filing the documents mentioned in the list of documents enclosed to the petition. The other application I.A.No.88 of 2007 was filed by the junior colleague of the counsel for the plaintiff for the purpose of reopening the matter for adducing evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. The application in I.A.No.88 of 2007 was dismissed mainly on the ground that the affidavit filed by the junior counsel of the petitioner is not sufficient to allow the petition though the hearing of the said application was adjourned for three times, the plaintiff did not file any affidavit and the curable defect was not cured and accordingly dismissed the application and consequently the application in I.A.No.87 of 2007 filed for condoning delay in filing the documents was also dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the advocate is not entitled to file application to reopen the case as he cannot step into the shoes of the petitioner and the advocate is not competent to file the affidavit in support of the petition in relation to the facts which are within the exclusive knowledge of the parties and therefore the petitioner is not maintainable under law. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the affidavit filed in I.A.No.87 of 2007 for condonation of delay in filing the application in fact filed by the plaintiff himself alone and as the application to reopen the matter is only formal and technical application and therefore it cannot be said that the advocate did not know about the facts for entering his appearance in the court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Division Bench reported in G.Krishna Murthy v. Hemalatha Chit Funds Pvt., Ltd., Hanamkonda[1] wherein this Court held that it is well settled that the procedural laws are handmaid to justice. Technicalities and formalities should not be allowed to defeat the interests and ends of justice. What is required to be done by a Court is to do substantial justice to the parties, that too, on merits de hors trivial technicalities and formalities. It is, therefore, clear that all the interlocutory applications need not necessarily be signed by the party himself or herself and an affidavit can be signed either by the party himself or by an advocate or anybody, including the clerk of an advocate, who is conversant with the statement of facts, which are necessary to be furnished for maintaining an interlocutory application. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, I am of the view that the civil revision petitions are liable to be allowed. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.1944 of 2007 filed against I.A.No.88 of 2007 is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. In so far as the application in I.A.No.87 of 2007 is concerned, the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam, without assigning any reasons simply dismissed the said application observing that in view of dismissal of I.A.No.88 of 2007 as there is no purpose to allow the petition. In view of the above, C.R.P.No.1863 of 2007 filed against I.A.No.87 of 2007 is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam, to consider afresh and dispose of I.A.No.87 of 2007 in accordance with law on merits. No order as to costs. _______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 3.11.2010 kpr [1] 2006 (4) ALD 42 (DB)