JUDGMENT 1. In this revisional application, the plaintiff of Money Suit No. 163 of 1984 has assailed the order dated 21.7.2000 passed by the learned Judge, 3rd Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in the said suit, whereby his petition praying necessary direction to the defendants to pay Rs.l,51.274.75p. and interest thereon up to 31st December, 1996, being the provident fund amount was rejected on the ground that despite the direction of showing cause as to why the plaintiff in that application has addressed the same as application of the defendants, sufficient cause was not shown by filing a verified petition. 2. From the application showing the reason for such mistake, as filed, it appears that inadvertently the word "defendant" was typed, in place of plaintiff in the original application claiming such dues, but such application as was filed as per direction of the learned Court below as passed by the order dated 26.4.2000, was required to be verified, but the same was not done. 3. Verification of an application and proforma of filing an application and other matters as pointed out by the learned Court below, in my view is very hyper technical point. For the mistake committed in filing the application, of course by the learned Advocate appearing in the matter, the litigant a poor employee surely should not suffer, which is now a settled legal proposition by several judgments of the Apex Court. Furthermore, it is a settled law that procedural law cannot subserve the substantive Justice. Reliance in this connection is placed in the case of (1) Ramankutty Guptan v. Avara reported in 1994 (2) SCC 642 , wherein the Apex Court in Paragraph 8 held that procedure is hand made for Justice and unless the procedure touches upon the jurisdictional issue, it should be moulded to subserve substantive Justice. Furthermore, applying the principle of doctrine of proportionality, even in the instant case though it is an outcome of synthesis of Article 14 of constitutional law, in my view, the order impugned is disproportionate to the mistake as committed. Reliance in this connection is made to the judgment in the case of (2) Kalipada Das v. Bimal Sengupta reported in AIR 1983 SC 876 . Reliance in this connection is made to the judgment in the case of (2) Kalipada Das v. Bimal Sengupta reported in AIR 1983 SC 876 . Considering the entire matter, accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and quashed with liberty to the present petitioner to file appropriate application with proper verification and for making necessary correction of the word 'defendant' in the application by incorporating the word 'plaintiff', before the learned Court below, which the learned Court will consider and, thereafter, will pass appropriate order in the main matter regarding release of provident fund amount on merit, after hearing the parties. 4. The revisional application is, accordingly, allowed. 5. Since, this is a provident fund matter, the learned Court below is directed to dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 6 months from date. Xerox certified copy of the order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously.