Substantial justice should prevail over technicalities in legal proceedings.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) THE petitioner had been working as deed writer in Tehsil Fatehpur, District Fatehpur connected with the office of the Deputy Sub-Registrars office since 8/08/1986. He applied on 16-3-83 for renewal of his licence for the year 1983-84, which was recommended and forwarded by the Deputy Registrar. However, the licence of the petitioner was not renewed.

( 3 ) IT is alleged that the petitioner was threatened that his licence would be cancelled and as such he was compelled to file a suit for injunction restraining respondents Nos. 3 and 4 i. e. Collector, Fatehpur and the District Registrar, Fatehpur from interfering in the working of the petitioner as deed writer. The defendants put in appearance and filed the written statement and had given evasive reply to the allegations made by the petitioner in the plaint. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that the respondents be directed to give specific reply to the allegations made in the plaint. The copy of the plaint has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The English translation of paragraph 1 of the plaint is as under :"that the plaintiff had been working as deed writer since 8/08/1986 in the office of Deputy/sub-Registrars office, Fatehpur and his services are governed by U. P. Deed Writer Compliance Rules, 1977. "

( 4 ) THE English transaction of the reply to the aforesaid paragraph is as under : "that the contents of paragraph 1 of the plaint are not admitted as averred. "

( 5 ) IT has been alleged in the writ petition that the defendants filed objection to the said application and 30-1-86 was fixed in the case before the trial Court. This case was adjourned to 20-2-86. Since the defendants were not present, the case was therefore fixed on 24-2-86 for ex parte evidence. It is submitted that on 24-2-86 the petitioner appeared and filed his affidavit in support of his case. He was not cross-examined and his evidence was closed. The case was, therefore, fixed on 26-2-86 for orders.

( 6 ) IT has been urged that on 26-2-86 the Court had only to pronounce the judgment and nothing more was to be done in the case. However, the defendants put in appearance on 24-2-86 and filed an application for setting aside the order dated 20-2-86. The proceedings of order-sheet maintained in the Court below from 30-1-86 to 24-2-86 are as under : 30-1-86 Application on behalf of defendants for adjournment. It was not opposed. Allowed. Fix 20-2-86 for disposal. 20-2-86. Mukadma Pukara Gaya. Wadi upasthit hua. Adhiwanta Sahit Pratiwadi anupasthit hai. Aaj mukadama Prarthna Patra 33-Ga and 39-Ga ke nistaran hetu niyukta hai. Pratiwadigan ki or se koi no upasthit hua hai aur na koi Prarthna Patra Aaya hai. Aadesh hua ki mukdadma dinank 24-2-86 ko ek pachhiya nistaran hetu pesh ho. SD/- Illegible 24-2-86 Affidavit filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Plaintiff closed its evidence. Put up for orders on 26-2-86. Later on application on behalf of defendants for setting aside the order dated 20-2-86. Put up on the date fixed for disposal of objections in the meantime. "

( 7 ) IT is evident from the order dated 4-3-86, Annexure 5 to the writ petition that the trial Court set aside the order dated 20-2-86 and against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a revision, which was also dismissed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Fatehpur by an order dated 31-1-87. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Vijai Bahadur has argued that the Courts below have committed an illegality in setting aside the order dated 20-2-86 as the case was fixed by the trial Court for pronouncement of the judgment after closing the evidence of the petitioner. It has no jurisdiction to set aside the order dated 20-2-86. The provisions of Order 9, Rule 7, C. P. C. were not attracted in this case and the trial Court has no jurisdiction to give the benefit of the said provisions. He has further argued that the revisional Court had failed to notice that the trial C