P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner filed t. S. No. 144 of 1993 for specific performance of contract. The defendants after appearance before filing their written statement, filed an application for a direction to the plaintiff to file the documents relied upon by the plaintiff for inspection. The said petition was allowed and the plaintiff was directed to file the suit documents'by 29. 4. 1994. but the plaintiff did not file the documents. A memo was filed by the defendants and the case was posted to 6. 7. 1994 to file the documents. On 6. 7. 1994 no steps were taken on. behalf of the plaintiff and the following order was passed :"plaintiff takes no step. Defendant No. 2 files a Memo for directing the plaintiff to file the suit documents. No document has been filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff is absent on calls. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed for default without cost. " (Emphasis added)thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under Order. 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'cpc')for restoration of the suit. In the said petition, it was stated that the plaintiff was not aware that the case had been posted for filing of documents by the plaintiff as the Advocate's clerk in charge of the case had not intimated the plaintiff who was under impression that the case had been posted for filing of written statement. Due to such bona fide wrong impression on the part of the plaintiff, he could not take any step. The 'two defendants filed separate but similar objections. They took the stand that even prior to 6. 7. 1994, the plaintiff had been directed to file the documents and it cannot be said the sufficient, opportunity had not been given to the plaintiff for filing the documents. It was further stated that the dismissal of the suit for non-filing of documents should be taken to be a dismissal under the provisions of order 11,' Rule 21, CPC and, as such, the petition for restoration under Order 9, Rule 9, cpc, was not maintainable. ( 2 ) THE trial court held that sufficient opportunity had been given to the plaintiff for filing the documents and the petition filed by defendant No. 2 on 23/3. ( 2 ) THE trial court held that sufficient opportunity had been given to the plaintiff for filing the documents and the petition filed by defendant No. 2 on 23/3. 1994 to cause production of the documents should be taken to be a petition under Order 11, Rule 19. CPC. The trial court further held :"the non-compliance of the direction of the court to cause production of the documents has led to dismissal of the suit and as such the order of dismissal dated 6. 7. 1994 is deemed, to be an order under Order 11, Rule 21, CPC. The petition under Order 9, Rule 9. CPC is therefore not maintainable. "the trial court further observed that the petition had been verified by the Advocate's Clerk and the plaintiff had neither filed the petition nor had been examined in the case. Against the aforesaid 'order of the trial court dismissing the petition, the plaintiff fled a Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 (c), CPC, before the District Judge. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the same was not maintainable as the order of dismissal was one under Order 11, Rule 21, CPC and the petition for restoration under Order 9, 'rule 9, CPC. was not maintainable. The aforesaid orders of the trial court and the appellate court are being impugned in the present civil revision. ( 3 ) THE order of dismissal dated 6. 7. 1994 cannot be said to be one under Order 9, Rule 8, CPC, simply for the reason that the suit had been fixed for hearing and, as such, the provisions of Order 9, Rule 8, CPC, were not applicable. It is of course true that the trial court had' taken note of the fact that the plaintiff was absent on. "call and the suit was dismissed for non-appearance of the plaintiff. However, as the suit had not been fixed for hearing, ex facie, Order 9, Rule 8, CPC, had no application and the subsequent application for restoration under Order 9, Rule 9 was not maintainable. "call and the suit was dismissed for non-appearance of the plaintiff. However, as the suit had not been fixed for hearing, ex facie, Order 9, Rule 8, CPC, had no application and the subsequent application for restoration under Order 9, Rule 9 was not maintainable. Even then, the trial court could have treated the application to be one under section 151, CPC, in which case an appeal not being maintainable, the appellate court instead of dismissing the appeal on the ground of maintainability, could have treated the appeal to be a revision in view of the Orissa amendment, the District Judge being also the revisional authority, there was no difficulty for the Dis -. trict Judge to dispose of the appeal as a civil revision. ( 4 ) ORDER 11. Rule. 21 (1) CPC, reads as follows :"21 (1) Where any party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatories, or for discovery or inspection of documents, he shall, if a plaintiff, be liable to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution, and, if a defendant, to have his defence, if any, struck out, and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended, and the party interrogating or seeking discovery or inspection may apply to the court for an order to that effect and an order may be made on such application accordingly, after. notice to the parties and after giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. "a bare perusal of the. aforesaid provisions indicate that before dismissing a suit under the aforesaid provisions, the following-conditions must be fulfilled : (A) There must be an order to answer interrogatories, or for discovery or inspection. (b) If the plaintiff fails to comply wirh the order, the suit is liable to bo dismissed for want of prosecution. (c) The party seeking discovery or inspection must apply to the court for an order to that effect. (d) The order may be made after notice to the parties and after giving them reasonable opportunity of being heard. ( 5 ) THERE cannot be any doubt that in the present case defendant No. 2 had filed an application for production/inspection of documents referred to in the plaint and an order for production had been passed by the trial court. ( 5 ) THERE cannot be any doubt that in the present case defendant No. 2 had filed an application for production/inspection of documents referred to in the plaint and an order for production had been passed by the trial court. However, when the plaintiff had not complied with the said order, further applica tion of defendant No. 2 for seeking dismissal of the suit on that score should have been filed. Even assuming that a memo was an application to that effect, before passing an order of dismissal, the trial court was obliged to give reasonable opportunity to the plaintiff of being heard in the matter, that is to say, in the matter of dismissal of the suit under Order 11, Rule 21. , CPC In the present case; the trial court obviously had not followed thy procedure laid down under Order 11, Rule 21, CPC before dismissing the suit. ( 6 ) EVEN assuming that the dismissal was one under Order 11. Rule 21, CPC and was appealable under Order 43, Rule l (f), CPC. the petition for restoration could have been treated by the trial court to be one under section 151, CPC. It is. of course, true that where a specific remedy has been provided, it may not be open to a party to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC. As the specific remedy in this case (the remedy of filing appeal under Order 43, Rule l (f), CPC)would have been illusory, there was no bar to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 151, cpc. Moreover, in the present case the order of dismissal did not specifically purport to be one under Order 11, Rule 21, CPC, nor the trial court had followed the procedure mentioned therein. In such view of the matter, though the petition under Order 9, Rule 9, cpc. was. not strictly maintainable, yet the trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not treating the same as one under Section 151, CPC, and the appellate court also failed to exercise its jurisdiction in not treating the appeal to be a revision. ( 7 ) THE matter can be viewed from another angle. The trial court while disposing the petition for restoration observed that the order of dismissal must be deemed to be one under Order 11, Rule 21, CPC. ( 7 ) THE matter can be viewed from another angle. The trial court while disposing the petition for restoration observed that the order of dismissal must be deemed to be one under Order 11, Rule 21, CPC. In such an event even though the petition under Order 9, rule 9: CPC. was not maintainable, the appellate court could have been even treated the appeal against the latter order to be one, under Order"43, Rule l (f), CPC, against the original order of dismissal. It has to be kept in view that the rules of procedure are handmaids of justice. The various courts established are not merely courts of law but courts of justice and are supposed to mould the relief keeping in view the circumstances of the case. ( 8 ) AS already indicated, the appeal could have been treated as a revision oras an appeal under Order 43, Rule l (f), CPC, and in normal course the matter should have been remanded to the District Judge to reconsider the matter. However, since the order of dismissal was not in accordance with the provisions contained in Order 11, Rule 21, CPC, to avoid unnecessary delay. I think it just and proper to dispose of the revision with a direction for restoration of the suit with further direction that the documents in question shall be filed by the plaintiff on or before 10th april, 1998. This order is subject to the condition that the plain tiff shall pay a sum of rs. 250/- by way of cost to defendants 1 and 2 each, or their counsels on or before the said date. The. parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 10th April, 1998 on which date the trial court on being satisfied about the payment of cost and production of documents, shall proceed to-fix a further date for filing of written statement. If the direction regarding payment of cost and/or production of documents as contained in this order is not complied with, the order of dismissal of the suit must be deemed to have been confirmed. The Civil. Revision is accordingly allowed subject to the conditions and directions indicated above. Reulslon allowed.