LAWS(ORI)-2011-3-55

BASANTILATA BEHERA Vs. SUDHAKAR PANIGRAHI

Decided On March 01, 2011
Basantilata Behera Appellant
V/S
Sudhakar Panigrahi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the parties Perused the impugned order at Annexure -4 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Balasore. A petition has been filed under Order, 9, Rule 7 CPC by the present Petitioner, who was Defendant No.1 in Civil Suit No..225 of 2008 -1 for setting aside the said ex parte order passed against' her '& another petition was filed under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC to accept the written statement. But the said prayers were disallowed by the, Learned Court below. The impugned order further shows that for filing additional written statement in view of the amendment of the plaint, the suit was adjourned to 25.1.2010.

(2.) AFTER hearing Learned Counsel for the parties, I perused the impugned order at Annexure 4 so also perused the petition filed by the present Petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC who was Defendant No.1 (Annexure -1) It is found from the impugned order at Annexure 4 that the petition under Order 9 Rule 7 was filed on 5.10.2009 along with another petition under Order 8 Rule 9 but those petitions were not entertained then as the present Petitioner as Defendant No.1 had not filed the written statement. It is the assertion of the Petitioner that no notice was served on her and she could only come to know that she has been set ex parte when she contested the Interim Application No. 89 of 2008 arising out of C.S. No. 225 of 2008.

(3.) IT is trite that the rules of procedure are the handmaids of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of procedural 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 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.