JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. Petitioner in instant petition under Section 104 of the Constitution of the Jammu and Kashmir, throws challenge to order dated March 15, 2016, passed by learned 1st Additional Munsiff, Jammu, (for brevity "court below") in a Suit for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction, whereby an application filed by petitioner under Order 8, Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, for filing Replica to the Written Statement of Defendant No. 3, has been dismissed. 2. An application was filed by petitioner, who is plaintiff before court below, stating therein that Defendant No. 3 has filed Written Statement, raising certain issues without its comprehensive elucidation as the same provides one-sided story, beneficial to Defendant No. 3 only and that Defendant No. 3 has made mention of certain court orders and events but has not given the resume in his written statement as about taking of subsequent events. Petitioner maintains that application exhorting filing of Replica was aiming at explication of the claims made by Defendant No. 3, so as to facilitate the court below to come to just conclusion. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Mr. Bhat, learned counsel for Defendant No.3, though not filed objections to the application but resisted the same on the ground that the application does not show any ground to make out his case for granting him leave to file replica. He argued that petitioner is unnecessarily delaying disposal of the main suit for grant or otherwise of the relief as there is no ground for entertaining the petition. He further submits that in view of the aforesaid position, no petition can be filed under Article 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir for questioning the order passed by the civil court. 5. Order 7, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, provides that in a plaint, name of the Court in which the suit is brought should contain; the name-, description and place of residence of both plaintiff and defendant should be mentioned; facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose and the fact showing that the court has jurisdiction should also be contained in the plaint. Order 8, Rule 1 provides as regards written statement. Order 8, Rule 2 makes provides that new facts must be specially pleaded in the written statement. Order 8, Rule 1 provides as regards written statement. Order 8, Rule 2 makes provides that new facts must be specially pleaded in the written statement. A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading set off under Order 8, Rule 6, set up, by way of counter-claim under Order 8, Rule 6A, against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit. Order 8, Rule 9 of the Code - subject-matter of instant cast, envisages:- 9. Subsequent pleadings - No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than byway of defence to a set-off or counter-claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit, but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time for presenting the same. 6. The Rule says that other than by way of defence to a set-off or counter-claim, only with the leave of the court pleading subsequent to the written statement, shall be presented. In the present case on hand, only in compliance of the Rule, the petitioner filed the application seeking leave of the court below to receive the Replica on the grounds set out therein. 7. It is not the intention of the legislature that no pleading subsequent to the written statement should be allowed other than for reasons given therein. But the intention is that without the leave of the court, no pleading subsequent to the written statement shall be presented. Hence it goes without saying that the subsequent statement or additional statement, as Replica in the present case, could be filed only with the leave of the court on such terms, as the court thinks fit. The approach of the Law in permitting the court to grant leave in such cases is positive. Hence it goes without saying that the subsequent statement or additional statement, as Replica in the present case, could be filed only with the leave of the court on such terms, as the court thinks fit. The approach of the Law in permitting the court to grant leave in such cases is positive. But, the court while granting the leave could direct the petitioner to comply with certain terms that the court thinks fit and hence absolute there is no impediment or hurdle or legal barrier put forth by the Rule in allowing any additional statement or say Replica, subsequent to the written statement and only the shot provided in the arms of the court for granting leave is that it could allow the application on such terms as it thinks fit. The same power could also be suo moto exercised by the court as per the concluding part of the Rule. The Rule has been liberally construed so far as the court granting the leave to present such additional statements and Replica. Therefore, it could be safely concluded that in all such cases, wherein the plaintiff approaches the court with an application praying for leave of the Court to receive the Replica, the courts are expected to be liberal in granting the leave but of course on terms as the Court thinks tit in the circumstances of the individual case. 8. From the above it emerges that the court is given wide discretion to receive the written statement or additional written statement to give opportunity to the parties to agitate the case effectively. Under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC, power is given to the Court to call for the written statement or additional written statement from any party, thereby showing the provisions of Order 8, Rule 9 CPC, are liberal in its application, giving wide discretion to the Court, probably to give a chance to the parties, to agitate their right even raising subsequent pleas, for which the Court should not be rigid. The courts should exercise their discretion liberally, when it will not affect the right of the party. 9. Rules of procedure are aimed at not only advancing the cause of justice but also doing substantial justice between the parties. The courts should exercise their discretion liberally, when it will not affect the right of the party. 9. Rules of procedure are aimed at not only advancing the cause of justice but also doing substantial justice between the parties. Interpretation of rules of procedure should not thwart judicial process because ultimate aim of all laws including Code of Civil Procedure is to set at rest controversies between the parties and in the event narrow interpretation as has been done by the court below while passing impugned order is accepted, it will result in procedure being allowed to defeat the ends of justice. It is pertinent to point out here that too technical view of substantial provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure would leave no room for elasticity of interpretation, which needs to be guarded against, of course, doing justice to both the parties, lest it results in frustrating the very purpose of enacting the procedural law, which is aimed at the furtherance of justice as a step-in-aid in that direction. 10. The Division Bench of this Court in case Pt. Govind Ram v. Ram Saroop, AIR 1999 J&K 63 , has observed and rightly so: "17. It may also be worthwhile to notice that the rules of procedure like the provisions of Order 8, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil procedure are aimed at not only advancing the cause of justice, but also doing substantial justice between the parties. In no case rule of procedure can be brought to be interpreted in a manner, which may thwart the judicial process. Ultimate aim of all laws including procedural laws has to finally set a rest controversies between the parties. If the narrow interpretation as was being urged on behalf of the appellant is accepted, it will result in procedure being allowed to defeat the ends of justice. It may also be worthwhile to notice here that the procedure is something designed to facilitate justice and further its end, it is not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties, much less a thing to trap up litigant" 11. In P. Saraswathi v. C. Subramaniam, the Madras High Court, after discussing the significance of Order 8, Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure and relying on judgment, inter alia, in Baldev Singh and Ors. In P. Saraswathi v. C. Subramaniam, the Madras High Court, after discussing the significance of Order 8, Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure and relying on judgment, inter alia, in Baldev Singh and Ors. v. Manohar Singh and Anr., (2006) 6 SCC 498 , held: "I am of the view that under Order 8, Rule 9 C.P.C., wide discretion is given to the Court to receive the written statement or additional written statement to give opportunity to the parties to agitate the case effectively. Therefore, the rigid principle applicable in the case of amendment of plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. cannot be applied in the case of receiving additional written statement under Order 8, Rule 9 C.P.C." 12. In that view of matter, the court below does not seem to have taken a liberal view with a positive approach as warranted by the Rule nor has the court below established as to how the petitioner wanting to introduce an entirely different case so as to cause prejudice to the other-side. After ail on completion of every formality including such as one sought to be introduced by means of Replica by the petitioner/plaintiff, ultimately on a fair trial, affording with adequate opportunities for both parties to be heard in full, the suit is going to be decided by the court below on merits and on available evidence. While so, refusing to grant leave for presenting the Replica is nothing short of denial of an opportunity for the petitioner/plaintiff to exhaust his remedy. 13. Viewed thus, the petition on hand is allowed and impugned order-dated March 15, 2016, passed by learned 1st Additional Munsiff, Jammu, is set aside by exercising the supervisory jurisdiction vested in this Court in terms of the provisions of Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. The application filed by the petitioner herein, before the Court below to receive the Replica, is allowed on condition that the petitioner pays a cost of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) in favour of respondent/defendant on the next date fixed before the trial Court. Parties through their counsel are directed to advance their arguments finally to the interim application on the next date fixed before the trial Court without any further delay. 14. Disposed of as above along with connected MP(s).