Procedural rules should facilitate justice, not impede it; errors in representation are rectifiable, and courts must ensure fair opportunities for parties to present their cases.

JUDGMENT :

Sashikanta Mishra,J.

The Petitioners are defendants and Opp.Party No.1 is the Plaintiff in C.S. No.86/2022 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Titlagarh. Opp. Party Nos.2 to 20 are the proforma defendants in the said suit. In the present application, the Petitioner-defendants call in question the correctness of order dtd.7.3.2024 passed by the court below whereby, their application for acceptance of written statement filed belatedly was rejected.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the aforementioned suit has been filed for partition of the suit properties. Upon receipt of summons, the contesting defendants entered appearance but did not file written statement within the stipulated period. It is stated that the Petitioners are residents of Cuttack and are of advanced stage. As such, they had prepared the written statement at Cuttack which being supported by affidavit was notarized at Cuttack. The said written statement was thereafter sent to their Advocate at Titlagarh for filing. The written statement was filed along with an application on 20.1.2023 for acceptance of the same. The Plaintiff-Opp. Party No.1 filed objection to the petition contending that the same was contrary to the provisions of Order III Rule 4 and Order VI Rule 14 of C.P.C. After hearing both parties, the Court below rejected the Petition filed by the defendants for acceptance of the written statement vide order dated 7.3.2024. The said order is impugned in the present application.

3. Heard Mr. S.S.Rao, learned Senior counsel with Mr. B.K.Mohanty, learned counsel, appearing for the Defendant-Petitioners and Mr. P.K.Rath, learned Senior counsel with Ms. S. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff-Opp. Party No.1.

4. Mr. Rao would argue that the court below adopted a hyper-technical approach to reject the application filed by the defendants for acceptance of the written statement. The Court below completely misinterpreted the provisions under Order III Rule 4 and Order VI Rule 14 to hold that the same were violated as the advocate identifying one of the defendants in the affidavit appended to the written statement was not authorized by them to act as counsel in the suit. This, according to Mr. Rao, is entirely erroneous because firstly, a Vakalatnama had been executed by the defendants in favour of the said advocate and secondly, even assuming he was not so empowered, fact remains that he had merely identified one of the defendants before the Notary Public in the affidavit. Mr. Rao concludes his argument by submitting that by adopting such technical approach, the cause of justice has been defeated.

5. Mr.P.K.Rath, learned Senior Counsel, on the other hand, would argue that the provisions under Order III Rule 4 as well Order VI Rule 14 are required to be strictly complied with. He submits, Rule 4 begins with a negative injunction to the effect that ‘no pleader shall act for any person in any Court unless he has been appointed for the purpose.’ In the affidavit appended to the written statement one Somanath Sahu, advocate has identified Defendant No.1 but he was not authorized by the defendants to appear for them in the suit. Further, the advocate is required to give a certificate that the contents of the written statement have been read over and explained to the defendants and accordingly he identified them. Advocate Somanath Sahu has merely given a certificate below the affidavit regarding typing of the written statement in thick papers, which he was not competent to do.

6. Admittedly, the written statement of Defendants 1 to 4 was not filed within the s