JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.M. Borbhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Haque, learned counsel for the respondent. By this application, the petitioner challenges the order dated 9.8.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi in Misc. Appeal No. 9/2015 whereby the order dated 17.6.2015 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Hailakandi in Misc. Case No. 55/2014 arising out of Money Suit No. 55/2009 was set aside and Money Suit No. 55/2009 was restored to file. 2. By the order dated 17.6.2015, the learned Munsiff No. 1, Hailakandi had dismissed the petition filed by the plaintiff for restoration of Money Suit No. 55/2009 which was dismissed for default on 5.10.2013. 3. The plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 62,951/- along with interest and the suit was decreed ex parte on 14.12.2010. The plaintiff instituted Money Execution case on 20.3.2011 and on receipt of notice of the execution proceeding, the defendant, who is the petitioner herein, filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which was registered as Misc. (J) case No. 1/2011 and by an order dated 21.6.2013, the ex parte decree was set aside. On 21.9.2013, the defendant filed a petition seeking time to file written statement which was allowed. On that day the plaintiff was absent. Next date was fixed on 5.10.2013 and on that day both the parties were absent without steps and accordingly, the learned trial court dismissed the suit for default. The plaintiff filed a petition for recalling the order passed on 5.10.2013 dismissing the suit for default. The said petition was registered as Misc. Case No. 55/2014 and the learned Munsiff No. 1, Hailakandi dismissed the same by the order dated 17.6.15. As against that, the appeal preferred by the plaintiff being Misc. Appeal No. 9/2015 was allowed by the learned appellate court by the judgment dated 9.8.2016 restoring Money Suit No. 55/2009. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Borbhuiyan that the application registered as Misc. Case No. 55/2014 was filed after a long period of 9 months, that too, without any petition for condonation of delay and therefore, the learned appellate court committed jurisdictional error in allowing the appeal. He has submitted that no reasonable explanation was even otherwise furnished to take a view that there was sufficient cause for allowing the suit to be restored. 5. Mr. He has submitted that no reasonable explanation was even otherwise furnished to take a view that there was sufficient cause for allowing the suit to be restored. 5. Mr. N. Hoque, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the plaintiff was unaware of the proceeding that had taken place as despite two specific orders of the learned trial court dated 20.7.2013 and 22.8.2013, directing the office to show the orders passed to the counsel of both sides, the same was not shown to the counsel for the plaintiff and it was only when the plaintiff enquired about the matter on 18.7.2014, the learned counsel made enquiries and came to learn about the dismissal of the suit on 5.10.2013. Thereafter, within a period of four days, petition was filed for restoration on 22.7.2014. He submits that although no separate application for condonation of delay was filed, the reasons had been elaborately spelt out in the application for restoration itself and the learned lower appellate court, taking note of the same, had rightly restored the suit to file. Accordingly, he submits that no interference is called for in this revision petition. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 7. In the paragraph Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the application registered as Misc. Case No. 55/2014, it is stated as follows: "4. That on 20.7.2013 an order was passed to show the order to the lawyer of both the sides but the order was not shown to the lawyer of the plaintiff side as yet. 5. That Sir, on 22.08.2013 against another order was passed specifically stating the order dated 21.06.2013 be shown to the lawyer of both the sides and for W/S. 6. That on 21.09.2013 an order passed stating plaintiff is absent. Defendant filed petition and sought time for filing W/S and N/O & W/S. 7. That on 5.10.2013 an order passed stating Both the parties are absent, no steps taken. The suit is dismissed for defendant I. 8. That neither the plaintiff nor his engaged lawyer was shown the order dated 21.6.2013, 20.07.2013, or 22.08.2013 and as a result the plaintiff/petitioner did not taken step in the case and the suit was dismissed for default for want of step. 9. The suit is dismissed for defendant I. 8. That neither the plaintiff nor his engaged lawyer was shown the order dated 21.6.2013, 20.07.2013, or 22.08.2013 and as a result the plaintiff/petitioner did not taken step in the case and the suit was dismissed for default for want of step. 9. That Sir, had the order been shown to the engaged lawyer of the plaintiff he could have definitely taken step thereof and the suit would have not been dismissed for default. 10. That the matter has come to notice of the lawyer of the plaintiff/petition when the petitioner came to the court to enquire about the matter only on 18.07.2014 and the matter was discovered by the concerned lawyer and the instant petition filed. 11. That Sir, there is no laches on part of the plaintiff/petitioner and the order of dismissal is required to be examined de novo considering the above facts and suit be restored to file." 8. In the objection filed to Misc. Case No. 55/2014, the defendant did not deny the above averments and, rather, had simply stated that the same are matters of record. The petitioner had also not brought on record of this petition the two orders dated 20.7.2013 and 22.8.2013 though he should have brought those orders on record. 9. The learned trial court observed that the orders directed to be shown by the order dated 21.6.2013 to the learned counsel for both sides was directory and not mandatory. It is not understood why at all such a direction was given if it was not necessary. The question whether the order is directory and mandatory does not arise in a judicial proceeding as the said concepts are relevant only in interpretation of statutes. The very observation of the learned trial court goes to show that the order was not shown to the counsel of the plaintiff. A categorical statement is made in the petition registered as Misc. Case No. 55/2014 that the order was not shown to the counsel for the plaintiff. The order dated 21.6.2013 also does not indicate that any date was fixed by the aforesaid order. If the order dated 21.6.2013 was passed on a fixed date, it is not understood why it was necessary as indicated in the order dated 22.8.2013, that the order dated 21.6.2013 be shown to the counsel for both the sides. 10. The order dated 21.6.2013 also does not indicate that any date was fixed by the aforesaid order. If the order dated 21.6.2013 was passed on a fixed date, it is not understood why it was necessary as indicated in the order dated 22.8.2013, that the order dated 21.6.2013 be shown to the counsel for both the sides. 10. While it is true that petition for recalling the order passed on 05.10.2013 dismissing the suit for default was not accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, it is to be noticed that the said application had all the ingredients of an application for condonation of delay. The appellate Court had also considered the reasons for the delay. The learned appellate Court had considered the matter in the right perspective while allowing the appeal and restoring the suit to file. In the facts of the case, non-filing of an application for condonation of delay separately should not come in the way of restoring the suit of the plaintiff as it is an established proposition of law that the act of the Court shall not cause prejudice to any litigant and it was only because of the fact that directions contained in a judicial order of the Court was not brought to the knowledge of the counsel of the plaintiff, the suit came to be dismissed for default. In the facts of Bhagmal & Ors. v. Kunwar Lal & Ors., reported in (2010) 12 SCC 159 , the Supreme Court had observed that the High Court should not have taken the hyper technical view that no separate application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. After all, procedure is only a handmaid of justice. 11. Taking that view, I find no good ground to interfere with the order dated 9.8.2016. 12. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The parties either by themselves or through their counsel will appear before the learned trial court on 31.1.2018.