JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. This petition has been filed against the order dated 18.7.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kishangarh Bas, Alwar allowing an application under Order 16, Rule 1 CPC filed by the respondent-defendant (hereinafter the defendant') and directing the list of witnesses filed by the petitioner plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff) to be removed from the case file of the suit for declaration and permanent injunction pending before it and instead kept in the 'D' file. 2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff laid a suit against the defendant for declaration and permanent. Details of the suit are not relevant in the context of issue in the present petition. On service of notice of the plaint on the defendant, written statement of denial came to be filed thereto Consequently on 6.10.2010 issues were framed. In terms of Order 16, Rule 1 CPC not later than fifteen days after the date on which the issues are settled the parties "shall" present in court a list of witnesses they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents and obtain summons to such persons for their attendance in court. It appears that in spite of settlement of issues on 6.10.2010 the plaintiff filed the list of witnesses before the trial court only on 28.10.2010. Based on the list of witnesses filed by the plaintiff summons were issued to witnesses for their evidence on 2.4.2011 Summons were served and on 2.4.2011, RW. 4 Ram Sharma s/o Prabhu Dayal filed affidavit, copy of which was supplied to counsel for the defendant. During the cross examination of Ram Sharma, the counsel for the defendant sought time to file an application, therefore the cross examination of Ram Sharma was deferred. Thereupon the defendant filed an application under Order 16, Rule 1 CPC praying therein that list of plaintiffs witnesses be removed from the record of the trial court in view of it having been filed beyond 15 days following the settlement of issues on 6.10.2010. The plaintiff filed reply to the application under Order 16, Rule 1 CPC, along with medical certificates stating therein that effective 6.10.2010 he was purportedly admitted at the Primary Health Center Tapookada, Alwar district and was advised rest, consequent to which upto 27.10.2010 he could not travel to the court to contact his Advocate and file the requisite list of witnesses. 3. 3. The matter was thereupon considered by the trial court and by its vide impugned order dated 18.7.2013 the defendant's application under Order 16, Rule 1 CPC filed by defendant was allowed and removal of list of plaintiffs witnesses from the court file directed and in stead its inclusion in paid 'D' of the record required. The reason which prevail with the trial court in passing the impugned order dated 18.7.2013 fundamentally was that even though the plaintiff had stated in his reply to application under Order 16, Rule 1 CPC that he had been admitted at Primary Health Center Tapookada, Alwar, in proof : thereof neither the admit card nor the discharge card had been filed. Holding that the reason for delay in filing the list of witness was not sufficiently explained the trial court directed as detailed hereinabove. Hence this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Mr. Rahul Kamwar, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has stated that J the provisions of Order 16, Rule 1 CPC are merely directory in nature and a mere ten days delay in filing the list of witnesses was not all prejudicial to the defendant nor indicative of reckless, lack of vigilance by the plaintiff. He has submitted that the fact that power vests in the court under Order 16, Rule 1 (3) CPC to call any witnesses other than those whose name appeared in the 3 list of witnesses, clearly indicates that there is no iron-clad mandatory time frame for submitting the list of witnesses, albeit the list of witnesses should ordinarily be submitted within fifteen days otherwise thereafter within a reasonable time for good reasons set out for the delay in submitting the list of witnesses. He has further submitted that even otherwise once the list of 3 plaintiffs witnesses was taken on record and summons based thereon issued, also the affidavits in evidence filed and cross examination plaintiffs witness thereupon commenced there was then no good reason with the trial court to allow the defendant's application under Order 16, Rule 1 CPC moved by the defendant on 2.4.2011 as if on second wind and direct the plaintiff's list of 4 witnesses to be removed from the record of the trial and instead kept in part 'D' of the record. Learned counsel has further submitted that the reply to application under Order 16, Rule 1 CPC filed by the plaintiff appears to have been no doubt created confusion by the use of wrong word "Bharti". But If the reply to application under Order 16, Rule 1 CPC is construed wholistically 45 and contextualy, it is indicative of the fact that, the plaintiff's intention in the reply was to state that he was only being treated at Primary Health Center Tapookada and under rest during this period. This counsel submitted was also testified too from the medical certificates filed. He has further submitted that in any event of the matter the filing of list of witnesses after 4 delay of so only about ten days beyond the prescribed period, the contravention was not of such nature which would have occasioned the necessity to set up a false and concocted case before the trial court. He has then submitted that in the facts of the case no prejudice was caused to the defendant by a mere delay of about ten days in filing the list of witnesses. Counsel submitted that in the over all facts of the case, the learned trial court ought to have exercised its discretion in condoning the delay in filing the list of witnesses by the plaintiff more so in view of the fact that his list of witnesses had already been taken on record and partly acted upon. 5. Mr. Saransh Saini, the learned counsel for the defendant has emphatically supported the impugned order passed by the trial court on 18.7.2013. He has further submitted that albeit the provisions of Order 16, Rule 1 CPC are indeed directory in nature, yet the application filed by the defendant was rightly allowed for the reason of a false case being set up for condonation of delay by the plaintiff. He has submitted that the words used by the plaintiff in reply to application under Order 16, Rule 1 CPC "Bharti" means admission. In this case admission of the plaintiff in Primary Health Center Tapookada was rightly disbelieved by the trial court in absence of the admit card and the discharge card. He has submitted that the words used by the plaintiff in reply to application under Order 16, Rule 1 CPC "Bharti" means admission. In this case admission of the plaintiff in Primary Health Center Tapookada was rightly disbelieved by the trial court in absence of the admit card and the discharge card. He has further submitted that the discretion of a court ought not to be exercised in favour of a person who sets up a false plea, and therefore the trial court has rightly allowed defendant's application under Order 16, Rule 1 CPC and removed the plaintiff's list of witnesses and directed it to be kept in part 'D' of the record. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 18.7.2013 passed by the trial court. 7. Procedures are handmaiden of justice and cannot be used to obstruct justice, where there is no contravention of a mandatory statutory provision or palpable prejudice to the other party before the court. In the instant case the delay in filing the list of witnesses by the plaintiff is merely of about ten days beyond the time period prescribed in Order 16, Rule 1 CPC,, No prejudice by the said delay has been or could conceivably be caused to the defendant. Nor in fact it was set up. Further the list of plaintiff's witnesses was already on the court's record and acted upon. Summons were issued to plaintiff's witnesses and cross examination of PW. 4 Ram Sharma commenced on 2.4.2011. In these circumstances in spite of careless averments in the reply to the application under Order 16, Rule 1 CPC by the plaintiff, about his being admitted "Bharti" at PHC Tapookada contrary to the documents filed with the reply only indicating the plaintiff's illness, the plaintiff could not be denied the right to examine his witnesses in support of the case set up by him for a decree of declaration and permanent injunction. The certificate of illness filed by the plaintiff along with reply to application under Order 16, Rule 1 CPC does not state that the plaintiff was admitted at Primary Health Center Tapookada, Alwar. But he certificates did establish that the plaintiff was ill during the said period. The certificate of illness filed by the plaintiff along with reply to application under Order 16, Rule 1 CPC does not state that the plaintiff was admitted at Primary Health Center Tapookada, Alwar. But he certificates did establish that the plaintiff was ill during the said period. Apparently it was an error in construing the certificate of illness issued by Primary Health Center Tapookada, that the plaintiff's counsel stated in the reply that he was admitted "Bharti" therein. 8. Misstatements in the court is a serious matter, but before visiting a litigant with serious consequences therefore, the court concerned has to be fully satisfied that the misstatement in issue was deliberate and malafide. In overall facts of the case I cannot draw this conclusion qua the plaintiff. Consequently, I would allow this petition. The impugned order dated 18.7.2013 passed by the trial court Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kishangarh bas is quashed and set aside on cost of Rs. 2000/- payable to the defendant. 9. At this stage, Mr. Saini, learned counsel for the defendant has submitted that the suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff in the year 1998. And, therefore, the learned trial court be directed to decide the suit within a period of six months. 10. The request made by learned counsel for the defendant is reasonable. The trial court is directed to expeditiously decide the suit not later than twelve months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Adjournments, if any, whenever sought shall be entertained only on an application in writing and allowed for good reason found by the trial court. The court shall abide by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue of adjournments as detailed in the case of Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd. [(2010) 9 SCC 678], where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that adjournment should be ordinarily limited to three times. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. Writ Petition Allowed.