ACEEBEES STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. JAYSHREE KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge has been made in this revision petition to the order dated 28.9.92 passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge allowing the application filed by the respondent under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) 'In order to appreciate the point involved in the revision. it is necessary to state certain facts. Plaintiff Triloki Nath Verma filed the Suit No. 164/87 against the petitioners for recovery of Rs. 29.700.00. On 15- 12-1987 during pendency of the suit. the plaintiff died An unsigned application by his daughter (respondent) to be substituted as his legal representative, was filed on 21.3.1988. The learned Addl. District Judge. allowed the application filed by the respondent. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners have come up in revision before this Court.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has streneously urged that the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in entertaining the application U/o 22 R 3 CPC which was not only barred by time but was not even signed by the respondent. Admittedly, the application filed U/o 22 R 3 CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not signed by the respondent. In my opinion, the omission of the respondents signature on the said application does not invalidate the application at least in a case like the present where the correctness and authenticity of the application is undisputed It is also significant that on 15-2-1991. the reslpondents statement was also recorded in support of the said application. It has to be borne in mind that rules of procedure are intended to be a hand maid to the administration of justice. Procedure is meant to subserve and not to rule the cause of justice. (Owners & parlies interested in M. V. ValiPero Vs Fernandeo Lopez AIR 1989 SC 2206. Manchurlal Vs N.B.M. Supply, Gurgaon AIR 1969 SC 1267) In the present case the learned Trial Judge in allowing the application filed on behalf of the respondent, has adopted the pragamatic approach to advance substantial cause of justice and the impugned order can't be faulted on the sole ground that the application for substitution was not signed by the respondent.