K KULA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does a law of procedure mandate an in exible vigidity in principle to refuse accommodation to substantive justice in all situations, is the question posed in the present petition. By the order impugned herein the learned court below has permitted the respondents to file a fresh affidavit by way of evidence in the suit pending before it. According to the petitioners on a strict interpretation of order XVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 this is not permissible and therefore the said order is liable to be interfered with by this court in exercise of its power under Section 115 of the Code and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) I have heard Mr. H.L. Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Dr. G. Lal, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) The essential facts are not in dispute. The respondents herein had filed a suit in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division No. 1, Guwahati praying for a decree inter alia for ejectment of the petitioners from the suit premises, recovery of khas possession thereof and arrears of rent etc. The suit was later transferred to the court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division No. 3, Guwahati and still pending final disposal. On receiving the summons of the suit, the petitioners entered appearance and filed their written statement. Keeping in view the controversy involved in the instant petition, it is permissible to skip details of the cases of the parties as set out in the pleadings. The suit on a preliminary obj ection raised by the petitioners was dismissed on 29.5.02 on an application filed by the respondents. Subsequently, it was restored to file and eventually fixed for evidence of the respondents-plaintiffs on 24.9.2002.