CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS civil petition is filed to review the order of this Court in civil Revision Petition No. 1928 of 1996, dated 28-6-1996 on the ground that the respondent had misrepresented this Court, that in view of the above civil revision petition preferred by him, he had not taken any action to comply with the direction of the court below to file an affidavit by way of objection and answers to the interrogatories and therefore, he be granted extension of time to file the said affidavit before the Court below, whereas, the true fact is that the respondent had already filed such an affidavit before the Court below on 3-6-1996, of course after filing the above civil revision petition and thereafter, on 22-6-1996 he did withdraw the same by filing a memo stating therein that the affidavit in question was not in the format and as per Rule 9 of Order 11 of Civil Procedure Code. ( 2 ) I heard the learned Counsel Sri S. Sreevatsa appearing for the review petitioner and also Sri C. R. Abdul Rasheed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. I have also perused the records. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had argued at the outset that the respondent had falsely represented to this Court that he did not take any action before the Court below in the matter of filing the affidavit in pursuance to his filing the civil revision petition before this Court and that false representation was only to overreach this Court and to obtain favourable orders in the hands of this Court. He had also argued that under Order 11, Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code, a person aggrieved may resort to an application to set aside any interrogatories on the grounds well set out therein within seven days after service of the interrogatories and the respondent in the instant case having not done that at the first instance, withdrew on 22-6-1996 the affidavit he filed earlier on 3-6-1996, and because of that Act of the respondent, he had lost the right to file objection to the interrogatories before the Court below. He therefore submitted that certain rights have accrued to the petitioner and that right cannot be negated by this Court by affording an opportunity to the respondent, who according to him is guilty of misrepresentation. He therefore submitted that certain rights have accrued to the petitioner and that right cannot be negated by this Court by affording an opportunity to the respondent, who according to him is guilty of misrepresentation. ( 4 ) SRI Abdul Rasheed, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent in the instant review petition was more apologetic in his submissions that there was some omission on his part in not properly representing the facts before this Court while seeking extension of time in the above civil revision petition to file the affidavit of the respondent in Form 3 in Appendix 'c' (in C. P. C.) by way of objections before the Court below in compliance of order 11, Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code and the same was not deliberate or intentional. ( 5 ) I have gone through the case papers, particularly the affidavit filed by the respondent on 3-6-1996 before the Court below produced at Annexure-A to the review petition and the order sheet in Original Suit No. 10430 of 1994 and further the copy of the memo filed by the Counsel for the respondent before the Court below on 22-6-1996, all produced by the review petitioner along with his review petition without marking them as annexures thereto. ( 6 ) IT is seen, in the said memo filed by the Counsel for the respondent on 22-6-1996 that the affidavit filed on 3-6-1996 was sought to be returned on the ground that the same was not in the format and as per Order 11, Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code. It is further seen in the order sheet in Original Suit No. 10430 of 1994 that the respondent had filed the above affidavit on 3-6-1996 and thereafter the matter was adjourned by the Court below from one day to another to hear on the LA. and finally on 22-6-1996, the Counsel for the respondent had filed the above said memo to obtain the return of the affidavit. The body part of the memo of the respondent referred to above, reads as follows:"the Counsel for the 4th defendant submits that after perusing only operative portion of the order dated 18-4-1996 an affidavit has been filed, but after perusing the complete orders it is noticed that the affidavit shall be in the form of Order 11, Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code vide Form 3 appendix. Hence, it is just and necessary to withdraw the said affidavit filed in the Court. Wherefore, the Counsel for defendant prays that this hon'ble Court be pleased to return the affidavit as withdrawn to meet the ends of justice". It is to be noted that on filing of the above memo, the Court below while considering the request of the Counsel for the respondent had directed him to take return of the affidavit filed, probably for the good reason that the same was not in the format as contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent as could be seen in the order sheet of the Court below in the suit dated 22-3-1996. ( 7 ) IF the respondent had filed an affidavit on 3-6-1996 and withdrew it on 22-6-1996 as stated above, it was not just and proper for the learned Counsel for the respondent to submit to this Court on 28-6-1996 (when the same had come up for admission) that in view of the civil revision petition filed by the respondent, he had not complied with the direction of the Court below to file the affidavit by way of objections. Here, I see some panic moves by the respondent's Counsel in withdrawing the affidavit on 22-6-1996, the one filed by him on earlier occasion on 3-6-1996 on the ground that the same was not in compliance with the relevant provision of law in the Civil Procedure Code. ( 8 ) NEVERTHELESS, the learned Counsel for the respondent would have brought to the notice of this Court as to what actually transpired before the Court below in between and earlier to the order in civil revision petition on 28-6-1996. Had the same been brought to the notice of this Court, perhaps the situation would not have been different in view of the fact that the affidavit was defective and the same was therefore sought to be returned and in fact ordered to be returned by the Court below. To my mind it appears that the act of omission and commission on the part of the Counsel for the respondent is for the reason that he was not that well informed regarding the legal position vis-a-vis the interrogatories filed under Order 11 of civil Procedure Code by the petitioner, probably being a beginner. To my mind it appears that the act of omission and commission on the part of the Counsel for the respondent is for the reason that he was not that well informed regarding the legal position vis-a-vis the interrogatories filed under Order 11 of civil Procedure Code by the petitioner, probably being a beginner. ( 9 ) IN that view of the matter, I am not convinced that there was a deliberate or intentional misrepresentation on the part of the respondent to mislead this Court and to obtain a favourable order as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner; however, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent cannot absolve himself totally for there was some act of omission and commission committed by him as pointed out by me or else there was no reason for him to be apologetic in his submissions with regard to that aspect of the matter. ( 10 ) IN the facts and circumstances peculiar to the case, the time of four weeks extended by this Court to the benefit of the respondent to facilitate him to file his objection while passing the order in the original civil revision petition has to be good and to stay for the simple reason firstly that the respondent withdrew on 22-6-1996 the affidavit filed by him on 3-6-1996 with the leave of the Court below on the ground that the affidavit was not in the format and in confirmity with the particular rule of Order 11 of Civil Procedure Code and the same is therefore no more in the record and secondly that if one reads the memo dated 22-6-1996 filed by the petitioner before the court below, it does convey that the withdrawal of the affidavit was with the intention to file a fresh affidavit in the format and in compliance with the provisions of law. All the more, one has to bear in mind that the respondent in the case in hand is not at large to participate in the proceedings of the Court below personally as he is accused of a serious charge of murder and is i n judicial custody. All the more, one has to bear in mind that the respondent in the case in hand is not at large to participate in the proceedings of the Court below personally as he is accused of a serious charge of murder and is i n judicial custody. Let justice not fail by shutting the door by application of intricacies and technicalities of law, not to afford him with an opportunity to file his objection to the interrogatories in consonance with law in the Civil Procedure code, after all, the procedural law is only an aid to do justice and not do injustice. Let justice be done. ( 11 ) IN the result, I am not inclined to entertain the civil petition and the same is therefore rejected. --- *** --- .