S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 is the petitioner against an order of the trial court refusing to accept the list of witnesses filed by the defendant No. 1 on the date he was to adduce evidence in this case. ( 2 ) ON 7-4-1986, defendant No. 1 filed a list wherein he indicated that he and one Laxmidhar Sahu were in attendance. However, his turn for examination of witnesses did not reach on that date. On 9-4-1986, he filed a list of six witnesses to be examined on his behalf. The plaintiff seriously objected to such a list on the ground that the list was not filed earlier and no acceptable reason has been assigned for such delay in filing the list. The learned trying Judge accepted the submission of the plaintiff and did not allowed the defendant No. 1 to examine witnesses as per the list furnished that day. The same is the subject-matter of this revision. ( 3 ) MR. S. Kr. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the plaintiff opposite party No. 1, submitted that the Parliament by incorporating sub-rule (3) to Rule 1 of Order 16, C. P. C. clearly intended that the parties should take steps for summoning the witnesses much earlier to the date of hearing so that both the parties are able to know the nature of evidence intended to be adduced by the other party. In case permission is given at the last moment to examine witnesses, there is every chance of the parties playing hide and seek resulting in the real truth being suppressed. There is strong force in the submission of Mr. Mohanty. When list of witnesses is filed by one party the other party should get a chance to know the nature of evidence which would be adduced. There may not be a fair trial in absence of such opportunity. That, however, does not mean that a party submitting the list of witnesses at a belated stage should be prohibited from adducing any evidence. Trial court ought to have considered that procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure is a handmaid of justice. The same is not to be utilised to obstruct the free flow of justice and proper adjudication. Formality, no doubt, is a hallmark of authenticity. Trial court ought to have considered that procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure is a handmaid of justice. The same is not to be utilised to obstruct the free flow of justice and proper adjudication. Formality, no doubt, is a hallmark of authenticity. That does not mean that a party should suffer merely because he has not adhered to the formalities laid down in the Civil Procedure Code. Procedure is never mandatory in nature. In just cases it can be condoned. ( 4 ) IN case the plaintiff was feeling aggrieved because of delay in filing the list of witnesses by defendant No. 1, the trial Court could have granted some time and permitted the plaintiff to adduce further evidence. It could have also awarded costs against the party on account of his laches putting the adversary to difficulty. The trial court ought not to have rejected the list completely which amount to denial of opportunity to the defendant No. 1 to prove his case. ( 5 ) AS the matter stands at present, there is already delay and the plaintiff has known the nature of the evidence which would be adduced by defendant No. 1. Therefore, I am not able to confirm the order of the trial court. In the circumstance, I direct the trial court to give opportunity to the plaintiff to adduce further evidence if he is so advised and thereafter examine the witnesses of the defendant No. 1. This will, however, be subject to the condition that the defendant No. 1 pays a cost of Rs. 100/- (one hundred), to the plaintiff to mitigate the prejudice caused to him. The costs shall be paid within two weeks from today in the trial court. Parties shall appear before the trial court on 23-8-1986 on which date the date of further hearing shall be fixed by the trial court and the suit shall be disposed of early but not beyond 1986. In case the costs as directed is not paid, the order of the trial court shall stand - confirmed. ( 6 ) IN the result, the civil revision is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision allowed.