JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. An eviction suit was filed in the court below in the year 1989 inter-alia based on the grounds of default in payment of rent alongwith others. 3. The provisional rent was also determined under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') An application under section 13(5) of the Act was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the court below on 21.11.1998 which was to be heard. On 11.8.1999 neither the defendants appeared themselves nor their counsel, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated against them. The next date put was 8.9.1999 on which date also neither the defendants nor their counsel appeared. The matter was further adjourned to 15.9.1999 on which date application of the plaintiffs for striking out the defence of the defendants was allowed exparte. On 21.10.1999 defendants appeared before the court below and filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC alongwith their affidavits that from 11.8.1999 the next date given to them by the reader of the court was 21.10.1999 and, therefore, they could not appear on 8.9.1999 and in their absence order to proceed exparte was issued on 8.9.1999 and application filed under Section 13(5) of the Act was also allowed on 15.9.1999, both of them be set aside. This application was contested by the plaintiffs. After hearing both the parties by the impugned order the application of the defendants dated 21.10.1999 was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defendants never intended to delay the proceedings nor applied any delaying tactics. Had it been so the defendants may not have appeared in the court below immediately after the order dated 11.8.1999 when order to proceed exparte was issued. This being an eviction suit the defendants must be permitted in the interest of justice to contest the same. 5. On the contrary the learned counsel for the respondents plaintiffs has supported the impugned order. 6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 7. Even assuming that from 11.8.1999 the next date may not have been intimated to the defendants by the reader of the court as 21.10.1999, that by itself is not sufficient to deprive the defendants to contest the eviction suit. 6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 7. Even assuming that from 11.8.1999 the next date may not have been intimated to the defendants by the reader of the court as 21.10.1999, that by itself is not sufficient to deprive the defendants to contest the eviction suit. Order sheet dated 11.8.1999 was written by the Presiding Officer himself and there is no over writing in it and the next date fixed was 8.9.1999. However, immediately thereafter on 21.10.1999 defendants appeared in the court below and applied for setting aside the exparte order. The court below should have been liberal and after imposing cost to compensate the plaintiffs should have set aside the exparte order. Procedural law is meant to substantiate the interest of justice. 8. Keeping in view the above factual and legal matrix in mind, I allow this revision petition and set aside the impugned order on payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/-. Cost be paid to the plaintiff within one month and thereafter the court below will again hear the arguments on the application under Section 13(5) of the Act and will expedite the proceedings in the eviction suit.Revision allowed. *******