JUDGMENT : B. L.Yadav, J. 1. By the impugned order dated 2-7-1988 objection of respondent no. 3 under section 9 (2) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) was treated to be maintainable and, within time. Against that revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default and thereafter restoration filed also met the same fate. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner and the revision was incorrectly dismissed as not maintainable because the order against which revision was filed was not interlocutory. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The Rules or Procedures are with a view to do complete justice between the parties and they are not to give a particular party special privilege. In this case objection filed on behalf of respondents was missing and a formal copy of the same was filed. Even though technically by a separate order delay in filing objection ought to have been condoned but as the objection filed was treated to be within time, the delay in filing the same stood condoded, by implication, 3. In Shive Mya v. Maung P. D. Hanva, AIR 1922 PC 214, it was observed as follows :- "All rules of court are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice and it is therefore essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to that purpose." IN Rural litigation v. State of U. P., AIR 1989 SC 594 at page 597, it was observed as follows : 'Court would not be technical in dealing with a matter of this magnitude. We have therefore entertained the miscellaneous petition." 4. A Court is not to proceed just on technicalities particularly when the final adjudication of the rights is going to be made, by a compulsory litigation consequent upon the issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act. We have therefore entertained the miscellaneous petition." 4. A Court is not to proceed just on technicalities particularly when the final adjudication of the rights is going to be made, by a compulsory litigation consequent upon the issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act. Even though the litigants might be unwilling to bring their case to court of law but they are forced to file objection in respect of their claim, the moment a notice under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Act has been sent, within 21 days of the receipt of the notice or a publication under sub-section 1 of Sec. 9, in such situation the substantial justice must be the criterion in disposing of application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and liberal view has to taken so as to advance substantial justice. The court or authority called upon to decide the rights of the parties is required to apply judicial discretion un- guided by the sentiments or technicalities. In this connection I am reminded of Justice Cardoza's observations in 'Nature of Judicial Process' (Yal University Press (1921) ) which are as follows :- "The court is to draw inspiration from consecrated principles, and not to yield to spasmodic sentiments to vague and unregulated benevolences and to excercise a discretion disciplined by system and subordinated to the primordial necessity of order in the social life wide enough in all conscience is the field of discretion that remains." In the intant case judicial discretion has correctly been exercised in treating the objection of opposite party to be within time. Substantial justice has been done. There should not be any grievance to the petitioner as the opportunity would be afforded to him for contesting the case on merit. The approach of the courts should be to afford opportunity to the parties and not to deny the same. Petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.