Procedural law is a handmaid of justice and should not be allowed to obstruct substantial justice. Procedural errors can be condoned in the interest of justice, especially when the error is bona fide and the party has taken steps to rectify it.

P.K. Lohra, J.

The petitioners-defendants have laid the present petition for assailing the impugned order dated 17th April, 2013 (Annex.14) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) (West) Bhilwara, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application of the petitioners under section 151 Civil Procedure Code.

2. By the said application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code, the petitioners have made endeavour to persuade the learned court below to permit the petitioners to mark exhibit on the certified copy of the decision in criminal case which was taken on record by the learned trial Court by its order dated 20th April, 2012. The petitioners have, inter alia, averred in the application that due to bona fide error and oversight, certified copy of the judgment of the criminal court has not exhibited although the same was on record, and therefore, the petitioners may be permitted to put/mark exhibit on the said document so that the same may be read in evidence.

3. The application submitted on behalf of the petitioners was contested by the respondent-plaintiff and a written reply to the said application was submitted. In the reply, the respondent-plaintiff has opposed the prayer of the petitioners/defendants.

4. Learned trial Court after hearing the rival parties, vide its order dated 17th April, 2013 rejected the prayer of the petitioners.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

6. Mr. Suresh Shrimali, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that while rejecting the application of the petitioners, the learned Court below has not recorded cogent and convincing reasons inasmuch as not putting/marking of exhibit on the document was a bona fide error which was procedural in nature and the same ought to3 have been overlooked by the learned Court below for imparting substantial justice. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shrimali, would urge that when the document was on record which was having definite bearing on the lis involved in the matter by not permitting the petitioners to put exhibit on the said document, the learned Court below has committed manifest error of law, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

7. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Court below while rejecting the application of the petitioners has simply assigned the reason that the matter is old one, and therefore, at the stage of final hearing, no indulgence can be granted to the petitioners, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners is not a justice oriented approach, and therefore, it has occasioned failure of justice. Buttressing these contentions, the Learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case supervisory jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is liable to be exercised to upset the impugned order.

8. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment of Apex Court in case of Smt. Rani Kusum v. Smt. Kanchan Devi & Ors. [2005 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 390]. The Apex Court while examining the nature and object of the procedural law has made following observations in para 11:-

11. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the Statute, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice.

9. Further elaborating the object of the pro