JUDGMENT J. B. Koshy, J. 1. This revision petition is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.215 of 1993 on thefile of the Sub Court, Kattappana. The above suit was filed in 1993 fordeclaration of their title and recovery of possession of the plaint scheduleproperty, after setting aside gift deed No.394/1959 and for incidental reliefs.The written statement was filed in 1995 and the case was posted in the readylist in January 1995. Meanwhile in December, 1994, defendants filed I.A.No.1917 of 1994 to amend the written statement. The above amendment wasallowed by the learned Munsiff on the ground that no prejudice will be causedto the plaintiffs by amending the written statement and nature of the suit willnot be changed. The amendment sought for could not in any way cause anyinjustice to the plaintiffs. The necessary averments for the present amendmentwere already made in the earlier written statement itself. Therefore, learnedMunsiff found that amendment application can be allowed. This order ischallenged mainly on the ground that the plaintiffs were not allowed to file anobjection to the above. 2. It is the case of the revision petitioners that notice of the petition was givento them on 13-12-1994. On that day the junior advocate appearing for theplaintiffs filed an application for adjournment stating that he has to contact thesenior Advocate at Ernakulam and to contact his clients in Tamil Nadu for filingan objection. This was not allowed and the case was posted to the next dayfor filing objection and hearing and the order was passed without giving anopportunity to the petitioners to file an objection. It is the case of the petitionersthat if time for objection was granted they would have been able to prove thatadditional facts are introduced and amendment cannot be allowed in law. Sothe major case of the petitioners rest with violation of the principles of naturaljustice in not allowing them time for filing objection to the amendmentapplication. 3. It is pointed out by the petitioners that in Thampi v. Collector of CentralExcise ( 1989 (2) KLT 65 ) the party has got a right of hearing in the appealproceedings will not cure the defect of principles of natural justice in theoriginal proceedings. Therefore, to substantiate the case before this Courtpetitioners have got an opportunity is not a ground for not allowing them to fileobjection in the lower court. Therefore, to substantiate the case before this Courtpetitioners have got an opportunity is not a ground for not allowing them to fileobjection in the lower court. The petitioners then refer to R.41 of the CivilRules of Practice, where it is stated as follows: "Unless the court otherwise orders, notice of an interlocutory application shallbe given to the other parties in the suit or matter or to their pleaders, not lessthan three days before the day appointed for the hearing of the application." Therefore, it is contended that under the Civil Rules of Practice minimum threedays notice is necessary before the case is taken up for argument. Here thecase was posted for argument without giving time for filing objection.Therefore, the procedure adopted by the learned Munsiff, in posting the caseon the next day is violative of Civil Rules of Practice. It is also pointed out thatunder R.55, the opposite party is entitled to file an objection. Here no time forfiling objection was granted even when an application for adjournment alongwith affidavit by the junior advocate was filed. Therefore, the order is clearly inviolation of the Civil Rules of Practice and principles of natural justice. 4. In Rafiq and another v. Munshilal and another ( AIR 1981 SC 1400 ) it washeld that party should not suffer for the inaction of his counsel. Here, in fact,an affidavit was filed for adjournment stating that since his party is at TamilNadu he cannot file an objection on the next day itself. In Joseph Michael v.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (1992 (1) KLT SN. 15 page 12) it was held thatorder passed without giving an opportunity to represent their case is invalid. 5. In Satya Narayan Maity v. Sunirmalendu Maity ( AIR 1973 Cal. 201 ) it washeld that failure to give opportunity to a party to file his objections to thestatements contained in an application of the other party vitiates the ultimateorder. Therefore, it is contended that they were not given an opportunity to fileobjection and hearing was done on the next day of filing the applicationviolating the Civil Rules of Practice. Therefore, it should be set aside. Thereason for refusing adjournment stated by the learned Munsiff was that therewill be delay as suit itself was filed in 1993 and it is in the ready list. Therefore, it should be set aside. Thereason for refusing adjournment stated by the learned Munsiff was that therewill be delay as suit itself was filed in 1993 and it is in the ready list. It isargued by the petitioners that the petition for amendment itself was filed afterthe case was posted in the ready list and in that case, for avoiding delayamendment application should have been dismissed. No extra advantage willbe given to him in prolonging the suit. 6. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that I.A.No.982 of 1994 for thesame relief of amendment was filed on 25-7-1994. For five months the matterwas pending. No objection was filed by the plaintiffs. Petitioners were aware ofthe petition and their prayer for amendment. Even though that was notpressed, the same contents are pressed here and therefore, there wassufficient time for the plaintiffs to file their objections. Even in the earlierpetition after five months also they did not file their objections. Again it waspointed out that the amendment sought to be carried out is of a simple naturewithout altering the nature of the suit and no new facts are pleaded. So even ifthe objection was filed no different decision could have been arrived at and theentire objections can be heard here itself. It can be seen that the impugnedorder is correct in law. 7. It can be seen that I.A.No.982 of 1994 was dismissed as not pressed andthe present I.A.No. 1917 of 1994 was filed for amendment of the writtenstatement. The question to be considered is whether the petitioners shouldhave been given an opportunity to file their objection and hearing when theyspecifically applied for the same. It is not disputed that the case was posted onthe next day of filing of the amendment application. No time for filing objectionwas granted in spite of the affidavit filed by the junior advocate appearing inthe case that he has to contact the senior advocate at Ernakulam and tocontact the party in Tamil Nadu. Under R.41 of the Civil Rules of Practicewhen an interlocutory application is filed, three days time should be given forhearing. In this case that rule is violated. Therefore, there is violation of theprocedural rules. In exceptional circumstances three days' time as mentionedin the rule need not be given. Under R.41 of the Civil Rules of Practicewhen an interlocutory application is filed, three days time should be given forhearing. In this case that rule is violated. Therefore, there is violation of theprocedural rules. In exceptional circumstances three days' time as mentionedin the rule need not be given. Here there is no such circumstance especiallywhen advocate applied for time with an affidavit mentioning cogent reasons.This defect cannot be cured because of the opportunity he has for hearing inthis revision application. 8. It is fundamental to fair procedure that both sides should be heard. Theprinciple of 'audi alteram partem' or 'hear the other side' is a far reachingprinciple of natural justice. The hearing to be granted should be a fair hearing.When a reasonable opportunity to file objection is not granted or a reasonableopportunity to contact the client in spite of specific prayer is refused, it cannotbe held that there is fair hearing. Under the Civil Rules of Practice, there isthree days' time to contact the parties, to prepare objection and for hearing.Even when an order of determination is unchallengeable as regards tosubstance, the violation of the fundamental principles of natural justice will goto the root of the matter. The hearing to be granted should be fair and partyshould get reasonable opportunity to place his defence. In R. v. University ofCambridge ((723) 1 STR 557) it was held as follows: "I remember to have heard it observed by a very learned man upon such anoccasion, that even God himself did not pass sentence even upon Adam,before he was called upon to make his defence. 'Adam' says God, where artthou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree, whereof, I commanded thee that thoushouldst not eat?' And the same question was put to Eve also." 9. It is true that procedural objections are often raised by unmeritoriousparties. Judges may then be tempted to refuse relief on the ground that a fairhearing could have made no difference to the result. But in principle it is vitalthat the procedure and the merits should be kept strictly apart, since otherwisethe merits may be prejudiced unfairly. In General Medical Council v.Spackman ((1943) AC 627) it was held by Lord Wright as follows: "If the principles of natural justice are violated in respect of any decision it isindeed, immaterial whether the same decision would have been arrived at inthe absence of the departure from the essential principles of justice. In General Medical Council v.Spackman ((1943) AC 627) it was held by Lord Wright as follows: "If the principles of natural justice are violated in respect of any decision it isindeed, immaterial whether the same decision would have been arrived at inthe absence of the departure from the essential principles of justice. Thedecision must be declared to be no decision." The general principle is stated in the maxim: "Qui Aliquid Statuerit parte inaudita altera, aequum licet dixerit, hand aequumfacerit" (He who shall decide anything without the other side having beenheard, although he may have said what is right, will not have done what isright)." Therefore, atleast three days' time was not given by the learned Munsiff asprovided under the Civil Rules of Practice. He ought to have decided thematter after giving an opportunity to the petitioners to file objection. It is truethat suit was filed in 1993. Therefore, long adjournment need not be given. It isto be taken note of that the application for amendment of the written statementwas filed only in December 1994 after the suit was listed for trial. Therefore,atleast three days' time required under the Civil Rules of Practice should havebeen given to the petitioners/plaintiffs to file objection and hearing. 10. In the above circumstances, without expressing any view on the merits ofthe case, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for decidingthe case according to law. The application for amendment of written statementshould be decided within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of thisjudgment. Both parties may appear before the Sub Court, Kattappana on23-7-1996 and on that day, if there is any objection to the amendmentapplication that should be filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. The suit itself maybe disposed of as expeditiously as possible. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above direction.