( 1 ) "procedure is but the machinery of law after all- the channel and means whereby law is administered and justice reached. It strangely departs from its proper office where in place of facilitating, it is permitted to obstruct and even to extinguish the legal rights and is made to govern where it ought to subserve -said Lord Penzance. And here is a practice, not even procedure, having no sanction in law (at least none brought to my notice), which has provenly outlived its utility and which by experience has been found obstructing the smooth flow of justice, far from facilitating it. It must be done away with; and sooner the better.

( 2 ) THIS is a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale filed in the year 1982. Twelve years have passed. The suit is yet to witness commencement of its trial; thanks to the loose practice of filing replications /rejoinders which has assumed a vide currency without having any foundation in the rules of procedure or in CPC.

( 3 ) THERE are two sets of defendants: defendants No. 1 to 4 and defendants No. 5 to 6. Two separate written statements were filed in the year 1983. The defendant No. 4 filed yet another written statement of his own. The plaintiff filed replications to each of the written statements. Replications so filed are nothing but mere denials of all the averments made in the written statement. Each of the averments made in the written statement has been reproduced in the replication and then denied. The recording of evidence was to commence in January, 1990. It had to be deferred for want of an original document before the Court. And then there has been a flood of applications; each application followed by a reply and by a replication; each step accompanied by an adjournment for the purpose.

( 4 ) I would not refer to such of the applications which have been disposed of. Suffice it to refer, as it is necessary to do, to I. A. NO. 1699/93 which is an application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code filed on 30. 10. 92 by defendants No. I to 3 seeking an amendment in their written statement. Time in routine was allowed for filing reply to the application and then replication too. There were a few adjournments. Reply was filed but not replication. On 20. 7. 93 prayer for amendment in the written statement was opposed by the plaintiff solely on the ground of its having been moved belatedly. The Court allowed the application by imposing costs. An amended written statement was also filed by defendant No. 1,2 and 3 which was taken on record. In routine, the case was adjourned for filing replication, if any, to the amended written statement. The plaintiff has filed a replication. It is an old story retold. All the averments made in the written statement have been restated in the replication accompanied by denial thereof. Inas much as the replication was not filed within the time of two weeks allowed by the Court, Counsel for defendants No. 1,2 and 3 has vehemently opposed the replication filed by the plaintiff being taken on record not only on the ground of delay but also on the ground that replication contains a. few pleas which are inconsistent with the replication filed by the plaintiff earlier. It is also submitted that the replication filed by the plaintiff should have been confined to the plea permitted to be introduced in the written statement by way of amendment and plaintiff cannot exploit the opportunity for the purpose of filing replication twice over to the same written statement.

( 5 ) THE point at controversy has been seriously argued at the Bar. The present case provides a just opportunity for examining the law and practice relating to replications and rejoinders, especially in Delhi High Court ( Original Side ). In the case at hand valuable time of the Court has been wasted in adjournments enabling filing of reply and replication to a simple application for amendment in the written statement. The proposed amendment was nothing but clarifica