The main legal point established in the judgment is that the action of the court should not prejudice any person, and the provisions of Order 22 CPC should be viewed as a flexible tool of convenience in the administration of justice.

C.R.P(PD)No.2890 of 2003 is filed challenging the order dated 9.4.1999 made in I.A.No.134 of 1998 in O.S.No.674 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.

2. C.R.P.(NPD)No.232 of 2006 is filed by the very same petitioner challenging the order passed in C.M.A.No.10 of 2004 dated 5.8.2005 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the order dated 30.1.2004 made in I.A.No.14 of 2008 in O.S.No.674 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.

3. I.A.No.134 of 1998 in O.S.No.674 of 1992 is filed by the petitioners to condone the delay of 1767 days in filing the petition to implead the petitioners 3 to 11 in C.R.P.(PD)No.2890 of 2003 as proposed plaintiffs, since the original plaintiffs 1 and 3 in the suit, who are the respective father of the said proposed plaintiffs, died on 24.11.1995 and 24.2.1993 respectively. The reason stated in the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application is that the respective petitioners father conducted the case and they were not aware of the case details and due to the sudden demise of their respective father, viz., plaintiffs 1 and 3, nobody pursued the case and the details about the case came to the knowledge of the petitioners only recently and thus occurred 1757 days of delay in filing the petition to implead.

4. The said application was rejected by the II Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli, on 9.4.1999 by stating that the reason given in the affidavit with regard to the lack of knowledge about the suit is unsustainable and without filing petition to set aside the abatement, the petition filed to condone the delay cannot be entertained.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the lower Court committed error in numbering the condone delay petition, without filing the application seeking to set aside the abatement and if the condone delay application was returned for the said reason, petitioners could have very well filed the application to set aside the abatement and therefore Court below committed an error in numbering the condone delay petition without the application seeking to set aside the abatement.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners have not filed application to set aside the abatement and filed petition only to condone the delay in bringing the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiffs 1 and 3 and therefore the lower Court is right in dismissing the said interlocutory application.

7. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents.

8. It is true that the application to condone the delay must have been filed along with a petition to set aside the abatement of the suit. The Court below ought to have returned the petition seeking condonation of delay since no petition to set aside the abatement was filed. The application for condoning the delay having been numbered erroneously, the Court below alone should be blamed for entertaining the said application, without returning the papers instructing the petitioner to file petition to set aside the abatement.

9. It is well settled in law that the action of the Court shall not prejudice any person.

(a) The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta, (2003) 3 SCC 272, in paragraph 26 held as follows:

"26. Laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose even an adjudication on merits of substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and other laws. Procedure has always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not meant to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice.

A careful reading of the provisions contained in Order 22 CPC as well as the subsequent amendments thereto would lend credit and support to the view that they were devised to ensure their continuation an