.fy'^. 'i ^;-.^?B>. • ''i '--:"£".'^y • s '>. •i.—^'1,A G^,v •L-1 J.D. Food Products Private Ltd. Tlii-ougli : Director- Maiiish Saluja, S/o late Shri Daljit Singh Saluja, aged about 28 vears, J.D. Food Products Private Ltd. C-7. Sirgitti Industria! Ai-ea, Bilaspur (CG). Simil Kumar Nattiiaiu, S/o Slm Govind Natthaiii, aged about 40 vears. Proprietor-Durga Traders. Subh •'^ Chowk, Kliarsiya, Raigarh (CG). \VKIT PEIHiOK UNDER AR'riCLE 227 OF 'IHE CONSITrm'ION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aeniliotri, J. Present: Shn Ashok Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. Sl-ui R.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the respondeat. QRALQftDER (Passed'oii 5"' dav ofDecember. 2008) Wrth the corisent ofthe parties, the inatter is taken up fbr heai-me finally. 1. Ttie petitioner is aggrieved bythe order dated 04.12.07 (Aimex'ure P/'l), passed by the First Addrtional District Judge, Bilaspur m Civil Suit No. l-B/2007 whereby the petitioner/'plaintiirwas declined to exainine liis witness. 2. The brief facts, in nutsheil ai-e that, the petitioner filed a suit against the respondent for recoveiy of money. The petitioner/plaintilf failed to exaiTiuie himselt'as weil as other witnesses. An application under Section 151 tbr re- opening ofthe case was fiied on 31.10.2007. The leamed Judge allowed the application on 19.11.2007, grantmg fi.u'ther opportuniU' to examitie himseifas well as other v/itnesses on payment ofcost ofRs, 5000/-. The case was fixed for evidence on 4.12.2007. On 4.12.07 the maUer was taken up at 11:30 Ahl, 1:00 PM and thereafter at 3:30 PM to enable the plaiiitilfto exaniine himself but the petitioner failed to exaniine himselL tlierefbre, t3ie case was closed ia respect ofproductioii and examination ofthe plaintifts witnesses. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed tliis petition. 4. LeaiTied counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Court below has not appreciated the facts and circumstaiice oftlie case m its tme perspective. In order to prove the case, the petitioner may be gi-anted opportumt}' to produce and examine his witnesses. 5. Per conti-a, leamed couiisel appeafiiig for the respondent supported the impugiisd order and contended that the court below has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. The plamtilf/petitioner, despite severai oppoituiuties granted to him, has not produced and exaiiiined lus witnesses. 6. I have heard ieamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. While rejecting the application of the petitioner, the court below has observed that inspite of giving various opportunities, the petitioner has not produced and exanuned his witnesses. Thus, it appears that the petitioner has not acted properiy 7. It is wel! settled that the procedural niles are the handmaids ofjustice. The objeet ofprocedure is to advance tlie cause ofjustice. The mles cannot be subservient to procedural mle. The procedural rule caiinot come in the vvay of dispensation ofjustice. Ordinarily the other party should not be denied the oppominity ofparticipatins in the process ofdispeasation.. Havisig appiied the well settled law to the facts of this case, he should not be thrown out on f techmcal grounds. The conduct ofthe petitioner/'plaintifrmay be eondoned on payment ofcostto the respoadent. 8. Iii view ofthe fbregomg, the order dated 04.12.2007 (Aniiexure P/'l) is set aside. The court below is directed to allow the petitioner/plamtitf to produce and exanune liis witnesses on 16.12.2008, subject to payment ofeost ofRs. 10.000/-. The case may be taken tbr exarauiation of plauitifi''s witnesses on 16.12.2008. 9. Accordmgly, the petition is allowed to the above extent. Certified copy, today itself Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sahu