Honble ARVIND, M.—This is a revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the order dated 2.9.2006 passed by learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar in appeal No. 101/2006. 2. Brief facts of this case are that earlier photocopy of the Vakalatnama was presented before the learned R.A.A. which was objected and later on this mistake was rectified and the original Vakalatnama was given and in view of the rectification of the mistake learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar ordered that this is a technical point and objection cannot be accepted. He, therefore, overruled the objection and the file was fixed for arguments on 11.9.2006. This revision petition was filed in this Court and admitted by the learned Single Bench on 13.9.2006 and this matter is pending with this Court. 3. Arguing in support of the petition, the contention of the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner is that no person has any liberty to be careless about the settled procedure of the Court. Only a photocopy was presented whereas photocopy of the Vakalatnama has no meaning. He also argued that once a document is not believable and since a document which cannot be accepted as per rule, no action can be taken on the basis of that document. The earlier Vakalatnama presented was only a photocopy and as such the non-petitioner cannot be permitted to take the courts proceedings in a very casual and irresponsible manner. Hence, the revision petition be accepted and the impugned order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority be set aside. 4. Learned advocate on behalf of the non-petitioner argued that this is a very minor mistake and Courts can always order for getting such mistake rectified in a reasonable time. We have already rectified the mistake and presented a Vakalatnama which is correctly presented. It was argued by the non-petitioner that Honble Supreme Court of India had decided a principle that non-signing of Vakalatnama or even a memo of appeal is not fatal and such a mistake can be corrected. We have already rectified the mistake and presented a Vakalatnama which is correctly presented. It was argued by the non-petitioner that Honble Supreme Court of India had decided a principle that non-signing of Vakalatnama or even a memo of appeal is not fatal and such a mistake can be corrected. Our attention was invited to AIR 2006 SC page 269 in which Honble Supreme Court has held as under:– "(A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), O. 41 R. 1, O. 3 R. 4 — Appeal — Memorandum — Signing of, by appellant or his pleader — Is mandatory — But it is a procedural provision — Non compliance does not entail automatic rejection of appeal without giving opportunity to rectify defect." 5. Our attention was also invited by the Amicus Curiae Shri N.K. Goyal to a case decided by Honble Supreme Court titled as Udai Shankar Vs. Ram Kaleshwar. This decision is reported in RRT 2006(2) page 1338 (SC). In this judicial precedent Honble Supreme Court reiterated the principle laid down in 1984 SCC (Supplement) page 597. Various principles were laid down by Honble Supreme court in the case of Udai Shankar Vs. Ram Kaleshwar cited supra - such as:– (a) Non-filing of Vakalatnama is not fatal. (b) Procedure was devised for doing justice and not for thwarting the same. (c) A statutory rule of practice should not be allowed to be used as a weapon of attack unless injustice is likely to occur. (d) The object of the Court is to decided the rights of the parties and not to punish them for their mistakes. 6. Our attention was also invited by learned Govt. Advocate Shri J.P. Mathur to 2005 RBJ page 235 where it has been held that "the technical objection should not come in the way of doing full and complete justice between the parties". 7. Having heard the parties and having respectfully perused the authorities and principles laid down by Honble Supreme Court of India, I come to the conclusion that it is important that substantial justice is done in a matter and no party can be deprived from the opportunity of getting proper justice done only because of the hurdle of some technicalities which are not fatal. In this case I fully and respectfully understand that the principles laid down as above by Honble Supreme Court are very much applicable directly to the facts and circumstances of this case. Technicalities cannot thwart the ends of justice. Substantial justice is of paramount importance and procedure and technicalities have been created to assist the cause of justice so that proceedings can move on a well defined path and a beaten road and it is convenient to come to a right conclusion through a well defined procedure by following that path because judicial matters can only be decided through a laid down procedure. But it does not mean that when that path itself creates problems on some technical grounds, then doing justice is more important and following the procedure is subservient for getting the ends of justice achieved. It is a rule that one should keep left while driving but when there is likelihood of accident by keeping left and one is forced to take diversion on the other side to avoid the accident in that case that diversion is always justified. Aim is to avoid accidents and to keep left is a rule to help avoid accidents but when that rule itself can cause accidents then at that stage a diversion is a well justified and deserves to be respected. 8. In view of the discussions above this revision petition is, therefore, dismissed and the order passed by learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar dated 2.9.2006 is upheld. Pronounced.