- (1.) Vide order, under challenge, defence of the petitioner was struck off on the ground that he has failed to file his written statement within a period of 90 days. It is apparent from the records that the written statement was filed by the petitioner on 14.10.2005. Counsel states that as the matter was fixed for summoning of other defendant, in view of that, he failed to file the written statement within the stipulated period.
(2.) Counsel further says that when the order, under challenge, was passed on 6.12.2005, written statement had already been placed on record, as such, the Court below was not justified to struck off his defence. It has further been brought to the notice of the Court that now the trial is fixed for 4.4.2006 for filing of written statement by other defendant/ respondent No.6. A prayer has been made that the time to file written statement be extended and the Court below be directed to take into consideration the written statement already filed by the petitioner.
(3.) This Court feels that rules and procedure are handmaid of justice to enhance the same and not to subvert it. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by L.Rs. And others v. Parmod Gupta (Smt.) dead) by L.Rs. And others (2003) 3 S.C.C. 272, in para 26 of the judgment had opined as under:- "Laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose even an adjudication merits of substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and other laws. Procedure has always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not meant to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice.";