Honble SINGH, J.–Heard Shri Maheshwari and perused the impugned order dated 17.11.1998 whereby the defendant- petitioners application under Order 18 Rule 2 C.P.C., praying that the plaintiff be directed to produce all the witnesses on a single day was rejected. (2). The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the evidence of the plaintiff would be mostly oral and in order the witnesses may not be tutored and they may speak the truth, it would be necessary that the plaintiff should be directed to produce all his witnesses on the day fixed for his evidence. Shri Maheshwari expressed his apprehension that if the plaintiff is allowed to produce his witnesses on several dates, opportunity would be available to the plaintiff to tu- tor his witnesses and thereby temper with their evidence and that would defeat the ends of justice. (3). I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Our judicial system, depends not only on an independent judiciary, it equally depends on honest and scrupulous witnesses. While there is a presu- mption that persons appearing before the court and taking oath of truthfullness would be speaking the truth, it cannot be ruled out that sometimes some witnesses, for some reasons, known or unknown, do not strictly adhere to the oath which they take. In such cases where the witnesses make a wrong statement before the Court, the course of justice is obstructed even if the wrong statement made by the witness is made without any malafide or ill will. Untruth polutes the stream of justice more than any other polutant available to the mankind. However, the remedy for avoiding per- jury and untruth does not lie in giving direction to the witnesses that all of them should appear on the day fixed for hearing and to further regulate their activities with a view to ensure that they are not tampered with. Similarly, the remedy for the above mentioned evil does not lie in the procedure suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the court should call all the witnesses on the single day and examine them on the same day because it is practically not possible in a large number of cases. Similarly, the remedy for the above mentioned evil does not lie in the procedure suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the court should call all the witnesses on the single day and examine them on the same day because it is practically not possible in a large number of cases. The only remedy which is available for eradication of the above mentioned evil is firstly in the nature of a voluntarily decision of every person who is called upon to appear as a witness to determine himself/herself that he/she would adhere to the oath taken by that person and that he/she would not by any act, including the statement, polute the stream of justice by making any untrue sta- tement. The next best remedy to eradicate per-jury and untruth would probably to take stern action against those who polute the stream of justice by making false statement in the courts and yet hope that they would escape without punishment. Adherence to truth will have to be insisted upon even if it requires expense of time and money and involves taking suitable action against those who make false state- ments either for promoting their claims or for defending themselves. Recent years have witnessed an awareness among the people of some of the civilised countries as is indicated by their efforts to bring home, even to the highly placed persons that they cannot escape punishment if they commit the sin of poluting the stream of justice by making false statements. Awareness on the part of the witnesses of their primary duty to speak the truth and truth alone in th court; awareness of the people that if they wish to continue to reap the benefits of this civilisation, they must not allow others to speak untruth in any form and the awareness of those whose duty it is to maintain, not only the law and order but also the constitutional, legal and moral norms in the society by taking appropriate action, against those who break them, appears to be the most afficacious remedy for eradicating the evil pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. (4). (4). The object of Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure is primarily to regulate the proceedings in the court so that the parties may get sufficient opportunity to put up their cases and the case may be disposed of as early as may be po- ssible. Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not contain any indication that it was intended to be used for curbing per-jury or for preventing the making of false statements. In other words the provisions of Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not appear to have been made with a view to eradicate the evil of production of false evidence in the courts. (5). It is a well established principle that no system should be put to an use for which it was not made and a power should be utilised only for those purposes for which it was conferred. Hence power cannot be used for a purpose for which it was not intended to be used. The violation of this rule gives rise to what is commonly known as ``colourable exercises of power. Similarly, a system cannot be put to such use for which it was not made. A suitable system will have to be discovered, if it already exists and, if it does not already exist necessary, action should be taken to create a system to eradicate the evil. (6). The impugned order passed by the lower court does not suffer from any legal infirmity or want of jurisdiction. The learned lower court has referred to the provisions of the Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is expected that the discretion which is conferred on the learned lower court will be exercised in accordance with the provisions of Order 18 Rule 2 C.P.C. Since, I have come to the conclusion that the provisions of Order 18 C.P.C. were not enacted by the legislature with the object of eradicating the evil of per-jury, it would be for the legislature to enact separate provision in the Code of Civil Procedure for eradicating the evil of per-jury, if it is considered necessary. (7). The petition is disposed of accordingly.