Sukhdev Singh Kang, J. - (1.) PURAN Singh and Atna Singh filed a suit for possession. The parties led evidence. The evidence had been completed. An application was made by the plaintiffs to lead some additional evidence. This application was allowed on 18th May, 1979 subject to the payment of Rs. 40/ - as costs The case was adjourned to 25th May, 1979 On that day the plaintiff's counsel was out of station and a request for adjournment was made this request was allowed subject to the payment of Rs. 20/ - as costs This was in addition to the costs of Rs. 40/ - ordered to be paid on 18th May, 1979. It may be mentioned that on 25th May, 1979 neither the costs were tendered nor the evidence was produced by the plaintiffs. On 28th May, 1979 also the plaintiffs did not pay the costs and did not examine any evidence. A prayer for adjournment was made but it was declined and the case was fixed for 29th May, 1979, an application was made by the defendants praying that the plaintiffs should be debarred from prosecuting the suit as they had failed to pay the costs awarded by the Court. The plaintiffs resisted this application. The learned trial Judge by a detailed order has disallowed this application Aggrieved by that order, the present revision petition has been filed.
(2.) MR . S.L. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioners, has drawn my attention to Section 358 of the Code of Civil Procedure and contended that this provision of law is mandatory. It has been introduced with the salutary object of avoiding delays in the decision of suits pending in the subordinate courts. The costs, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, are paid to the opposite party to compensate for the inconvenience caused and the expenses incurred by it in attending the Court. So if the costs are not paid then the plaintiffs cannot further prosecute their case In support of his contention, Mr. Ahluwalia has relied upon two decisions of this Court; the first is Smt. Hakmi v. Pitamber, (1978) 70 P.L.R. 256 and second is Nanak Chand v. Suresh Chand Jain, 1979 P.L.J. 332. No doubt, these cases support the contention raised by the learned counsel but the facts and circumstances of the present Case are entirely different in this case as has been noticed earlier, the trial of the case had ended the case was fixed for arguments and then an application was made to produce certain revenue records The copies of the revenue records had to be procured from the Revenue Authorities. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, in spite of the been efforts, the copies were not available, no those could not be produced It was argued that the costs were to be paid only if the evidence had to be recorded. In fact the language and the tenor of the order is to the same effect. The permission to examine the evidence was granted conditionally on payment of cost language of the order could induce a lay client to believe that the costs were to be paid only if further evidence had to be examined This is not correct position of law but this view is not such that could not be taken The application was made by the plaintiffs. Generally the plaintiffs are not interested in delaying the suit. The case had been delayed by about a fortnight only. It cannot be said that the intention of the plaintiffs was only to delay the proceedings. The case was ripe for decision Only the arguments by the parties had to be heard Nothing more had to be done in the case by the plaintiffs It is well settled that the laws of procedure are only made to further the ends of justice and not to thwart justice. In Nanak Chand's case (supra) the position was almost similar as in the present case. There also the tenant had on two opportunities not paid the costs and also had not examined his evidence. An application made by the petitioner -landlord for striking off the defence of the tenant had been made and declined by the Rent Controller. Revision petition filed by the landlord was districted by this Court and the learned Judge had also taken notice of sub section (1) of section 35 -B of the Code of Civil Procedure which gives a right to the party, in whose favour order has been passed to recover the costs There is another aspect of the matter This revision has been filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendants had been a warded costs of Rs. 60/ - for the inconvenience caused to them. The amount of the costs had been tendered in Court before the impugned order was passed but the plaintiffs refused to accept the same by the impugned order no imparable injury has been caused to the petitioners. It has not occasioned failure of justice. On the other hand if the contention of the petitioners is accepted the respondents definitely will be non suited just for a lapse which may have occurred only on a misunderstanding of the orders of law. The proviso to section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been incorporated only to advance justice The learned trial Court has kept this principle it view while declining the application of the petitioners. To my mind the impugned order is correct, legal and just In any case it cannot be said that it is one of those orders which needs interference under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by this Court I find no merit in this revision and the same is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs The parties are directed through their learned counsel to appear before the trial Court Court on September 5, 1979.;