The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of providing opportunities for fair justice and the principle that all rules of procedure are meant to advance the cause of justice.

IRSHAD ALI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Safiq Mirza, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Humayun Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

2. Factual matrix of the case is that Suit No.50 of 2014 was filed by respondent no.1 for injunction. Trial Court granted opportunity to file written statement but the same could not be filed before the trial court. On 16.11.2015, opportunity was granted to file written statement on payment of cost, but written statement was not filed. The petitioner moved an application on 19.4.2016 for grant of permission to file written statement. The application was dismissed vide order dated 6.10.2016. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application No.C-59 for recall of the order dismissing the application for grant of permission to file written statement. The application was dismissed on 21.2.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner filed written statement on 24.4.2017 and moved an application to accept the written statement before the court below. By means of the impugned order dated 18.9.2017, the application of the petitioner dated 24.4.2017 has been rejected on the ground that the order dated 21.2.2017 has not been assailed before any Forum nor an application has been moved for recall of the order. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed revision before the District Judge which has also been dismissed vide order dated 23.1.2019 affirming the order passed by the trial court.

3. Assailing the impugned orders, the submission of learned Senior Advocate is that the cause of action while rejecting the application vide order dated 21.2.2017 and the application for acceptance of written statement were in different proceedings, therefore, both the courts below have committed gross illegality in not considerating the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

4. His next submission is that to grant fair justice to the parties, the opportunity of hearing should not be stopped in a cursory manner. He also pointed out that the law in this regard is very much clear in catena of decisions that the opportunity should be provided to the parties to file their claim before the competent Court by awarding costs.

5. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Surendra Kumar and another v. Sri Rajendra Kumar Agarwal, (1990) 8 LCD 248 . In the case, the defendant moved an application 13 times seeking adjournment to file written statement. The competent authority while considering this aspect of the matter held that the permission would have been accorded by awarding costs to file written statement.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar, (2006) AIR SC 396 , wherein after considering, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded that 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 CPC 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.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Shah Mohammad v. Incharge District Judge, Lucknow and others, (2005) 23 LCD 20 , wherein this Court while dealing with the matter, recorded that a request was made for filing of the written statement by making request that the same is ready. The Court considered the submission and granted permission to file t