The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of substantive justice and the need to balance procedural rules with the cause of justice, emphasizing the inherent jurisdiction of the court and the principles of civil procedural law.

Amitava Roy, J.

1. Does a law of procedure mandate an inflexible rigidity in principle to refuse accommodation to substantive justice in all situations, is the question posed in the present petition. By the order impugned herein, the learned court below has permitted the respondents to file a fresh affidavit by way of evidence in, the suit pending before it. According to the petitioners on a strict interpretation of Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 this is not permissible and therefore the said order is liable to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 115 of the Code and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. I have heard Mr. H.L. Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Dr. G. Lal, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The essential facts are not in dispute. The respondents herein had filed a suit in the court of the learned Civil Judge Junior Division No. 1 Guwahati praying for a decree inter alia for ejectment of the petitioners from the suit premises recovery of has possession thereof and arrear of rent etc. The suit was later transferred to the court of the learned civil Judge, Junior Division No. 3, Guwahati and is still pending final disposal. On receiving the summons of the suit, the petitioners entered appearance and filed their written statement. Keeping in view the controversy involved in the instant petition it is permissible to skip details of the cases of the parties as set out in the pleadings. The suit, on a preliminary objection raised by the petitioners was dismissed on 29.5.2002 on an application filed by the respondents. Subsequently, it was restored to file and eventually fixed for evidence of the respondents-plaintiffs on 24.9.2002.

4. On the said date, i.e., 24.9.2002 the respondents filed a petition for adjournment which was granted with a cost of Rs. 100 and the suit, was next fixed on 9.10. 2002. On that day as well the respondents prayed for adjournment. The prayer was allowed with a cost of Rs. 100 fixing 27.11.2002 for evidence of the respondents-plaintiffs. On that date, the respondents-plaintiffs filed an affidavit of a witness, namely, the respondent No. 1/ plaintiff No. 1. This affidavit was in the form of evidence as contemplated under order 18 of the Code (after amendment). The affidavit though filed/the deponent could not be administered the oath for the same due to paucity of time of the court and the suit was therefore next fixed on 12.12.2002 for swearing of affidavit and cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness. On that date, a prayer for time on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs was made, which was allowed again with a cost of Rs. 100 fixing 21.1.2003 for cross examination of witnesses of the respondents-plaintiffs. On 21.1.2003 a prayer was made on behalf of the respondents-plaintiff to file fresh affidavit of Respondent No. 1/plaintiff No. 1 on the ground that as the earlier affidavit had not been sworn, there was no bar in filing a fresh affidavit and further in view of some mistakes in the earlier affidavit a fresh affidavit was necessary in the interest of justice. Objection was raised on behalf of the petitioners-tenant contending that as in the meantime the hearing of the suit had been adjourned on four occasions at the instance of the respondent-plaintiffs. If they were permitted to file fresh affidavit it would amount to granting them five adjournments, during the hearing of the suit which was not permissible under order 17 Rule 1 of the Code. It was also urged that as the affidavit had already been filed and accepted by the Court and a copy thereof has been served on the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants, the prayer for filing of fresh affidavit should not be granted.

5. The trial court after hearing the parties deferred the order and have eventually 27.1.2003, by the impugned order allowed the prayer of the respondent-plaintiff to file a fresh affidavit. This i