SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPMS 3596/2019 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. (2) Petitioner is defendant no. 2 in a suit filed by respondent no. 1. Plaintiff (respondent no. 1) filed an application seeking leave to amend the pleadings. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court, vide order dated 17.1.2018. Plaintiff/respondent no. 1 challenged the said order in a revision filed under Section 115 CPC. During pendency of the said revision, one of the defendants to the suit, namely, Roop Ram Saini died. Plaintiff/respondent no. 1 moved an application for substituting legal representatives of Roop Ram Saini. The said application was allowed by learned Revisional Court vide order dated 12.9.2019. Petitioner has challenged the said order, passed by the Revisional Court on 12.9.2019, in this writ petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the date of death was not mentioned in the substitution application filed by the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 and in the absence of the date of death, the limitation for filing substitution application could not have been ascertained, therefore, learned Revisional Court erred in allowing the substitution application. He further submits that substitution application was not supported by affidavit and, as per the information received by the petitioner, Roop Ram Saini died about one year before filing of the substitution application. Thus he submits that the application was time barred and the revision stood abated. (4) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. (5) Petitioner is defendant no. 2, while Roop Ram Saini is defendant no. 4 in the suit. Legal representatives of Roop Ram Saini have not challenged the order of substitution passed by the Revisional Court. The contention that on account of delay in filing the substitution application, the revision would stand abated against all the respondents cannot be accepted. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivshankara & Another v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char, reported in (2023) 13 SCC 1, has held as under: “59. We are of the considered view that the same analogy is applicable in a case where even in the event of death of one of the defendants, when the estate/interest was being fully and substantially represented in the suit jointly by the other defendants along with the deceased defendant and when they are also his legal representatives. In such cases, by reason of non-impleadment of all other legal heirs consequential to the death of the said defendant, the defendants could not be heard to contend that the suit should stand abated on account of non- substitution of all the other legal representatives of the deceased defendant.” (6) Even otherwise also, learned Revisional Court has exercised its discretion by allowing the substitution application. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the Revisional Court’s discretionary order while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. (7) All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual 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. (8) Apex Curt has held that processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice. (9) Since revision petition filed by the plaintiff is yet to be decided, therefore any interference by this Court at this stage would be unwarranted. Consequently, writ petition fails and is dismissed. (10) Revisional Court is requested to make endeavour to decide the revision, if possible, within six months. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 25.2.2025 Pr