JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms. S. Senapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Banerjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Mubarak, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. 2. The present petitioner is plaintiff in Title Suit No.27/2011 pending in the court of learned Munsiff No.2, Cachar at Silchar. In the said suit the present petitioner also filed a Misc. Case No.8/2011 under Order XXXIX Rule 1and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Notice was issued in the aforesaid Misc. Case and steps were taken. All the defendants appeared and submitted their objection and the matter was pending. The plaintiff was required to take steps on all the defendants even in the main title suit but for this or that reason proper steps were not taken in time but for which the learned trial court ultimately dismissed the suit insofar as the defendant Nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are concerned on 28.06.2013 rejecting the application for adjournment. The plaintiff thereafter filed a review petition before the same learned court and that application has also been rejected by the impugned order dated 21.11.2013. It is this order which has been brought under challenge in the present revision petition. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record it appears that the default committed by the plaintiff is a technical one. The suit was presented along with the injunction petition and the injunction petition was numbered as a Misc. Case. All the defendants being opposite parties in the Misc. Case appeared and submitted their written objection and thus they are represented in the Misc. Case. Technically no notice was served in the Title Suit and taking opportunity of that the defendants did not file their written statement. The purpose of issuance of notice in a given case is to afford opportunity of hearing to a party so that the matter can be decided on merit after hearing both sides. Defendants having already appeared in the Misc. Case are aware that the main Title Suit is pending as otherwise there cannot be a Misc. Case arising out of it. Failure on the part of the plaintiff to take steps for service of notice upon the defendants, therefore, is a technical and procedural error. Defendants having already appeared in the Misc. Case are aware that the main Title Suit is pending as otherwise there cannot be a Misc. Case arising out of it. Failure on the part of the plaintiff to take steps for service of notice upon the defendants, therefore, is a technical and procedural error. The procedures are undoubtedly handmaid of justice and it has to bend before the cause of justice. In that view of the matter dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff on the technical plea of non-taking of steps on defendant Nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 by rejecting the application for adjournment does not appear to have fostered the cause of justice. For the same reason, refusal of the review petition by the impugned order dated 21.11.2013 also does not inspire confidence. Accordingly, both the orders are set aside and the revision petition stands allowed. 4. The plaintiff shall take fresh steps on defendant Nos.2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 within three weeks from today both by registered post as well as usual process. The learned court may permit the plaintiff to take steps under Order V Rule 9-A of the CPC as well. The said defendants shall be granted time on appearance for filing written statement and the suit shall be tried in accordance with law thereafter. Since the suit is of the year 2011, the learned court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the same expeditiously, preferably within one year from today. No order as to cost.