JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the final judgment and order dated 24.06.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RSA No.220 of 2003 whereby the High Court allowed the second appeal filed by the respondents herein and while setting aside the judgment/decree of the two Courts below remanded the case to the Trial Court for deciding the civil suit afresh on merits after affording an opportunity to the respondents (defendants) to file written statement.

2. The Controversy involved in the appeal lies in a narrow compass. Few facts set out hereinbelow would make the controversy clear.

3. The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the respondents are the defendants in the suit out of which this appeal arises.

4. The appellant filed a civil suit being O.S. 286 of 1993 against the respondents (defendants) in the Court of Munsiff -Indi (Bijapur) for recovery of Rs.45,000/-by way of damages. According to the appellant, the respondents illegally demolished his construction and thereby caused monetary loss and injury to him and hence the suit to recover the monetary loss suffered by him.

5. The respondents entered appearance but failed to file their written statement despite time granted by the Court.

6. The Trial Court, however, declined to grant further time to file written statement to the respondents though asked for and accordingly proceeded to record evidence of the appellant (plaintiff) and by judgment/decree dated 24.02.1997, decreed the suit of the appellant(plaintiff) for Rs.45,000/-against the respondents (defendants).

7. The defendants, felt aggrieved, filed first appeal before the Principal Civil Judge at Bijapur being R.A. No.103 of 1997. By judgment dated 04.12.2002, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment/decree of the Trial Court. Felt aggrieved, the defendants filed second appeal being R.S.A. No.220 of 2003 before the High Court.

8. By impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the second appeal and while setting aside the judgment/decree of the two Courts below remanded the case to the Trial Court for deciding the civil suit afresh on merits after affording an opportunity to the respondents (defendants) to file written statement.

9. It was held that the Trial Court did not grant sufficient opportunity to the respondents to file written statement, due to which they had to suffer the decree without any contest causing prejudice in defending the suit. The High Court, however, imposed a cost of Rs.11,250/-on the defendants to be paid to the plaintiff as a pre-condition for filing the written statement within the extended time granted.

10. It is against this order of the High Court, the plaintiff has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

11. Mr. Rajesh Mahale, learned counsel for the appellant (plaintiff). None appeared for the respondents though served.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the remand order of the High Court impugned in this appeal.

13. This case reminds us of the apt observations of a great Judge of this Court (Vivian Bose, J.). His Lordship, speaking for the Bench, in his inimitable style of writing said in Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal Kotah & Anr. (AIR 1955 SC 425) as under:

“A Code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is procedure something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends: not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical a construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provided always that justice is done to both sides) lest the very means designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it. Our laws of procedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires that men should not be condemned unheard,