JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Plaintiff is the Petitioner. On 9-4-1981, lawyer for the Plaintiff being engaged in a sessions trial could not cross-examine D.W. 1 and D.W. 2. On the same day at about 11 a.m. when he filed a petition to recall the witnesses for the Defendants the same was not permitted on the ground that it would defeat the specific provision in Order 17, Rule 1(2)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This order of the learned Munsif is the subject-matter of this Civil Revision. 2. Commencement of the hearing of the suit started on 19-3-1981. On that day, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined. One witness though available could not be examined due to want of time. The case was posted to 26-3-1981 for further hearing. On 26-3-1981, three other witnesses for the Plaintiff were examined. As one witness could not be examined due to intervention of Dola Holidays, Plaintiff filed a petition to grant one week's time for summoning the said witness. In the ends of justice, time, was granted till 3-4-1981. On that day, two other witnesses for the Plaintiff were examined and prayer was made for summoning another witness. The prayer of the Plaintiff was rejected and he dosed the evidence on his side. Defendants filed a list of 7 witnesses. D.W. 1 was examined in chief. Due to want of time it was directed that the further examination would continue on 9-4-1981. On 9-4-1981 in the first hour when the case was called, it was represented on behalf of the advocate for the Plaintiff that he was engaged in sessions court and given half an hour time be would be in a position to take part in the trial of the suit. Trial court deferred the further hearing till 8 a.m. At that time, a petition was filed by the advocate for the Plaintiff for some time on account of his engagement in the Court of V Session. Observing that engagement of a counsel in another Court is not a ground for time as provided in Order 17, Rule 16(c) Code of Civil Procedure, trial court rejected the petition as it was not a good ground. It was observed that the learned Counsel should have made some arrangement when be knew about the part-bearing of the suit. Observing that engagement of a counsel in another Court is not a ground for time as provided in Order 17, Rule 16(c) Code of Civil Procedure, trial court rejected the petition as it was not a good ground. It was observed that the learned Counsel should have made some arrangement when be knew about the part-bearing of the suit. It was also observed that the Court did not have any other work in hand and it could not wait indefinitely. However, 45 minutes more were given to the parties to get ready. At 9.15 a.m. again mention was made on behalf of the counsel for the Plaintiff for some more time. It was refused and the witnesses were examined on behalf of the Defendants. The case was closed and posted to 10-4-1981 for argument. This part of the order being material for this Civil Revision is quoted below: 40. Dt. 9-4-81. xx xx xx at 9.15 a.m. When the matter was called advocate S.M. Patnaik reported that the concerned advocate is engaged before Court of Sessions and wants about half an hour or some time. No further time can be granted. None appears for Plaintiff. The hearing is taken up Paicha and Kapila are examined. Defendant closes its side for the present. Call on 10-4-1981 for argument as no time today. xxx xxx xxx At 11 a.m. the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff hide a petition to recall the witnesses examined, after serving a copy on the Defendants counsel. The matter was heard and this prayer of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff was not accepted as the specific provision of the CPC would be defeated. It was secondly held that specific provision having been made in the CPC for the purpose the power u/s 151, CPC cannot be invoked in this case. 3. Order 17, Rule 1 is a procedure for trial of a suit. The proviso was substituted with the object of expeditious disposal of a case. A perusal of the different clauses of the proviso would indicate that the legislature was aware that there may be exceptional reasons, or the circumstances may be beyond the control of the party. Care has been taken in proviso (e) to pass an order before examination or cross-examination of a witness is to be dispensed with. 4. A perusal of the different clauses of the proviso would indicate that the legislature was aware that there may be exceptional reasons, or the circumstances may be beyond the control of the party. Care has been taken in proviso (e) to pass an order before examination or cross-examination of a witness is to be dispensed with. 4. As I find from the order-sheet of the suit, no order has been passed dispensing with the cross-examination of witnesses for the Defendants by the Plaintiff. Order 17, Rule 1 has not prohibited recalling a witness for cross-examination. No adjournment was prayed for in this case. Only a small accommodation was needed. When the Courts are held in morning hours during summer, the duration of the Court is up to 12-30 p.m. Court has already recorded that it had no other work. When at 11 a.m. the counsel for the Plaintiff approached to recall the witnesses for giving him an opportunity to cross-examine them in the interest of justice such a prayer should have been allowed. The matter would have been completely different if the learned Counsel for the Defendants would have reported that the witnesses had already left the Court. No objection seems to have been raised by the counsel for the Defendants who was heard in the matter. Only on the ground of technicalities that in view of Order 17, Rule 1(2)(c), Code of Civil Procedure, it is not proper to hold that inherent power cannot be attracted. I am of the view that the learned Munsif missed the essence in the cobweb of technicalities. 5. The object of the courts is to decide the rights of the parties. Courts are not to punish the parties for mistakes they make in the conduct of their cases by deciding otherwise than in accordance with their rights. The rules of procedure are handmade of justice and are not to be utilised as booby-traps for unwary suitors. The essence should not be missed in the cobweb of technicalities. Lord Justice Bowan in the decision reported in Cropper v. Smith (1884) 26 Ch. D. 700 has observed: ...I know of no kind of error or mistake which is not fraudulent or intended to over-reach, the Court ought not to correct if it can be done without injustice to the other party. Lord Justice Bowan in the decision reported in Cropper v. Smith (1884) 26 Ch. D. 700 has observed: ...I know of no kind of error or mistake which is not fraudulent or intended to over-reach, the Court ought not to correct if it can be done without injustice to the other party. Courts do not exist for the sake of discipline but for the sake of deciding matters in controversy.... 6. In case the above principle is kept in view it will be seen that the Defendants would not have been prejudiced and no injustice would have been caused to the Defendants in this case by recalling the witnesses. There was still a long period of the day within which the cross-examination would have been completed because the Court had no other work for the day. When the counsel for the Plaintiff was ready for cross-examining the witnesses and no idea was given to the Plaintiff that his counsel would not be available for cross-examination, there was no need for the Plaintiff to engage another counsel. Mistake of the lawyer should not prejudice a party. 7. The purpose at expeditious disposal of the suit as provided in Order 17, Rule 1 has been defeated when the suit has already remained pending for more than three years on account of a stay order of this Court. When the very purpose of speedy disposal of the suit has been defeated, in the interest of justice Plaintiff should be given a chance to cross-examine the witnesses for the Defendants. Defendants, however, will be required to produce the witnesses long after three years. This is no doubt a prejudice to the Defendants. This prejudice, in my opinion, can be mitigated by payment of costs which I assess at Rs. 200/- (two hundred). Before being permitted to cross-examine the witnesses for the Defendants, the trial court should see that the costs are paid to the Defendants or deposited in Court so that the Defendants can withdraw the same as per their convenience. In case the costs awarded above is not paid or deposited, no opportunity shall be given to the Plaintiff to cross-examine the witnesses. The Defendants had seven witnesses out of whom two have been examined possibly on account of the fact that the evidence went unchallenged. In case the costs awarded above is not paid or deposited, no opportunity shall be given to the Plaintiff to cross-examine the witnesses. The Defendants had seven witnesses out of whom two have been examined possibly on account of the fact that the evidence went unchallenged. In case the Defendants desire to examine further witnesses they should be permitted to do so in the ends of justice and for a fair trial. 8. The only prayer of the Plaintiff in this Civil Revision is to recall the witnesses for the Defendants in order to give him an opportunity to cross-examine them if the Civil Revision would have been dismissed, the Plaintiff would not have got this opportunity. In case the Plaintiff does not pay the costs before, availing this opportunity the effect would be the same as in the case of the dismissal of the Civil Revision. Defendants have appeared in this Court. In case the Civil Revision would have been dismissed normally they would have been entitled to costs. If the Plaintiff does not avail of the opportunity to cross-examine the Defendants witnesses by payment of the costs as directed, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Defendants will be entitled to realise the amount of costs by execution, as if the Civil Revision has been dismissed with costs. The costs paid or to be realised will not be assessed towards the costs of the suit. 9. Subject to the aforesaid conditions, the Civil Revision is allowed. There will be no further order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed