JUDGMENT A. M. SAPRE, J. - The challenge in the petition is to orders dated February 3, 2003 (annexure P 22), February 3, 2003 (annexure P 23), February 3, 2003 (annexure P 24), January 16, 2003 (annexure P25), January 16, 2003 (annexure P 26), January 16, 2003 (annexure P 27) and July 21, 2003 bearing Nos. 487 and 489 (annexure P 34 and P 35) passed by the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, whereby the revision petitions, filed by the petitioner, arising out of the period April 1, 1994 to March 31, 1995 and April 1, 1995 to March 31, 1996 were dismissed for want of prosecution and the effort made to get those revisions restored having failed has given rise to filing of this petition by the petitioner, before this court. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be heard by giving them one right of audience in support of the revision petitions filed by them. I am, in fact, satisfied that there was sufficient cause and the same should have been accepted to be sufficient one for hearing revisions on merit rather than to get the revisions dismissed for want of prosecution or not restoring them for hearing. The approach of the judicial authority in accepting the cause stated in the petition seeking restoration should be liberal. Its acceptance results in advancing cause of justice rather than to defeat. A right to be heard is one of the most valuable rights conferred upon the litigant (i.e., an aggrieved) to adjudicate their grievance in accordance with law on merits. Such right should always be preserved and made available to a litigant rather than to take it away from him. No doubt there are certain exceptions to this well-settled principle, yet by and large the efforts should always confer upon such right rather than to take it. I can do no better at this stage except to quote the subtle observations of the Supreme Court in one of the most coveted decisions reported in case of Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal AIR 1955 SC 425 , wherein the learned Shri Vivian Bose, J., speaking for the Bench made these observations : "A code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is procedure, something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends : not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical a construction of sections that leave no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provided always that justice is done to both sides) lest the very means designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it. Our laws of procedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires that men should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind their backs, that proceedings that affect their lives and property should not continue in their absence and that they should not be precluded from participating in them. Of course, there must be exceptions and where they are clearly defined they must be given effect to. But taken by and large, and subject to that proviso, our laws of procedure should be construed, wherever that is reasonably possible, in the light of that principle." The authorities must always take these observations in consideration as and when occasion arises for considering the case of restoration and giving a right of audience to a litigant when asked for. I, therefore, allow the writ and quash orders dated February 3, 2003 (annexure P 22), February 3, 2003 (annexure P 23), February 3, 2003 (annexure P 24), January 16, 2003 (annexure P 25), January 16, 2003 (annexure P 26), January 16, 2003 (annexure P 27) and July 21, 2003 bearing Nos. 487 and 489 (annexures P 34 and P 35) subject to condition that the petitioner will deposit Rs. 5,000 for restoration of each revision, i.e., in total six revisions. In all, therefore, the petitioner will be required to deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000 by way of costs as a pre-condition to get the hearing of the revisions on merits. Let the costs be deposited within a month with the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, who is seized of the revisions, which are accordingly restored to file and now to be heard finally by the Commissioner within a period of six months from the date of deposit of the costs as an outer-limit strictly in accordance with law. This court has not made any observation nor has it applied mind to the factual aspect of the matter, which has subject-matter of the revisions. This court has not made any observation nor has it applied mind to the factual aspect of the matter, which has subject-matter of the revisions. The Commissioner will, therefore, decide the revisions uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this court on merits. Certified copies within a week.