The rules of procedure must be used to further the cause of justice, and the court may allow belated filings if essential for complete adjudication of the controversy.

J.S. Khehar, J. - Respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit against the petitioners-defendants. In furtherance of the plaint the petitioners- defendants filed a written statement. No replication was filed when issues on the pleadings of the parties were framed. After framing of the issues, an application was moved seeking permission to file replication on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs. The same was opposed. Be that as it may, vide impugned order of the Civil Court dated 30.3.1999, the respondents-plaintiffs were permitted to file replication.

2. In the instant petition, the impugned order has been challenged. It is averred that the claim of the plaintiffs to file replication must be deemed to have been rejected when the Civil Court framed issues since the respondents- plaintiffs should have filed their replication before framing of issues. In the aforesaid peculiar circumstances, it is averred by the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants, that the impugned order amounts to review of the order by which the claim of the respondents-plaintiffs to file replication was impliedly rejected when the civil Court framed the issues. It is also the case of the petitioners-defendants that an opportunity had been accorded to the respondents-plaintiffs to file replication. They however, failed to do so when the said opportunity was afforded to them and in these circumstances, they cannot be permitted to file replication at this belated stage.

3. In spite of the arguments vehemently addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants which have been noticed above, I am of the considered view that the rules of procedure must be used so as to further the cause of justice. It has been noticed by the civil court in the impugned order that various objections have been raised by the petitioners-defendants and reply thereto by the respondents-plaintiffs was essential for complete and effective adjudication of the controversy between the parties. In these circumstances, the civil Court vide its order dated 30.3.1999 had allowed the respondents-plaintiffs to file replication and while doing so has imposed costs on the respondents-plaintiffs so as to compensate the petitioners- defendants. I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The instant petition is accordingly dismissed. There, shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.