JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner as well as Mr. P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-respondent No.1 and Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-respondent No.2. None appears for the respondents No.3 and 4 despite due notice from this court. 2. This is a petition filed by the plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 17.04.2017 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition] and 12.05.2017 [Annexure-6 to the writ petition] passed in M.S. 04 of 2016 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gomati, Tripura. 3. By the order dated 17.04.2017, the plaintiff’s prayer for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit was rejected. In this petition, the plaintiff-petitioner has urged that the trial court be directed to re-consider the said petition on restoration of the suit to its file by setting aside or recalling the order dated 12.05.2017. By the order dated 12.05.2017 the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution as the plaintiff did not file the list of witnesses as per direction of the trial court. 4. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner has at the outset submitted that the challenge against the order dated 17.04.2017 would not be pressed. Unless the suit is restored, it is meaningless to raise objection against the order dated 17.04.2017. Thus, Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel has confined his submission on the aspect of legality of the order dated 12.05.2017. According to Mr. Majumder, learned counsel, against the order dated 17.04.2017, the plaintiff-petitioner had filed one petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in this court being CRP 33 of 2017. During pendency of the said petition, the plaintiff-petitioner urged the trial court for giving a breather so that appropriate order could be obtained from this court. 5. On the face of such submission, the impugned order dated 12.05.2017 has been passed by the trial court on observing, inter alia, that : “A petition is filed on behalf of the defendant No.1 with a prayer that the documents filed by plaintiff has not been supplied to the defendant No.1 and the cost imposed by Hon’ble High Court is not paid. No order of Hon’ble High Court is submitted. The petition filed without supplying copy to the other side. Hence, the petition is rejected. No order of Hon’ble High Court is submitted. The petition filed without supplying copy to the other side. Hence, the petition is rejected. Today is the date fixed for filing of list of witnesses/examination in chief by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a time petition that the plaintiff filed writ petition against the order dated 17.04.2017 passed by this Court and therefore prayed for time.” 6. In this prospective, the trial court [the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gomati District, Udaipur] has passed the impugned order dated 12.05.2017, operative part of which reads as under : “I find no reason for filing such time petition by plaintiff. Filing of writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court does not create a bar in filing of list of witnesses and examination in chief by the plaintiff. I find no reason why does the plaintiff failed to file list of witnesses and examination in chief. Thus, if find the plaintiff is not interested to proceed with the case. Accordingly this case is dismissed.” 7. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel has pointed out that reference has wrongly been made to a writ petition. What was pending in this court was a petition under Article 227 being CRP 33 of 2017. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has further submitted that in that civil revision petition, the plaintiff-petitioner had contended that the trial court ought to have given the plaintiff liberty to file a fresh suit on allowing withdrawal as prayed and hence denial thereof was not proper. If this court would have allowed that petition there would have been no necessity of filing the list of witnesses or leading the evidence at all. On comprehending as such, the plaintiff prayed that the matter might be deferred for a few days so that the appropriate order could be obtained from this court but the trial court had hastily passed the order rejecting the said prayer and dismissed the suit for non-prosecution. The said order is absolutely misconstrued. At the time of setting the law in motion, it is to be appreciated by all courts how the justice delivery system functions. Unless a little space is provided for obtaining the order, eventuality that might ensue at least in some cases is adverse to the very concept of justice. 8. From the other side, Mr. At the time of setting the law in motion, it is to be appreciated by all courts how the justice delivery system functions. Unless a little space is provided for obtaining the order, eventuality that might ensue at least in some cases is adverse to the very concept of justice. 8. From the other side, Mr. P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-respondent No.1 has submitted that the plaintiff-petitioner even did not deposit the cost as directed by the judgment and order dated 29.03.2017 delivered in CRP 14 of 2017 as filed by the plaintiff-petitioner earlier challenging the order dated 04.02.2017 delivered in Civil Misc. 01 of 2017 from the same money suit No.04 of 2017. The plaintiff-petitioner had defaulted in every matter and he was not sure whether he would carry on the suit or not. Once he filed the petition for withdrawal of the suit with liberty and thereafter, when the liberty was not granted he had approached this court, and later on when the impugned order dated 12.05.2017 was passed, the said petition was not pressed. 9. Mr. Sahu, learned counsel has further submitted that the plaintiff-petitioner has been dilly-dallying the entire process to the serious detriment of the defendant No.1, and as such, this court should not show any leniency towards the plaintiff-petitioner. 10. Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-respondent No.2 was not however so obstructive as Mr. P. Sahu, learned counsel was. He has submitted that the matter be decided as early as possible without any prejudice to the parties. 11. Having due regard to the reasons laid in the order dated 12.05.2017 for dismissing the suit for non-prosecution, this court is of the view that the plaintiff-petitioner ought to have approached the trial court first and thereafter, if required, would have approached this court. As there is substantive provision for setting aside the order of dismissal for non-prosecution under Order IX, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel has immediately proposed that if the opportunity is given to the plaintiff-petitioner, they would approach the trial court for consideration of their prayer for setting aside the order dismissing the suit for the said non-prosecution. 12. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel has immediately proposed that if the opportunity is given to the plaintiff-petitioner, they would approach the trial court for consideration of their prayer for setting aside the order dismissing the suit for the said non-prosecution. 12. Situated thus, this petition is disposed of with the direction that if the plaintiff-petitioner approached the trial court within a period of 30 days, the period which has been consumed in proceeding the CRP 75 of 2017 i.e. from 16.08.2017 till the filing of the petition as contemplated, shall be discounted from the delay occurred in filing the petition for setting aside the order for dismissal for non-prosecution inasmuch as, such petition is supposed to be filed within a period of 30 days according to the Limitation Act. But if the plaintiff-petitioner approached the trial court beyond the period of 30 days, they will not be entitled to that benefit as this court is bound to set at balance the interests of the parties. 13. Further, the plaintiff-petitioner shall pay the cost of Rs.2000/- as was imposed by the judgment and order dated 29.03.2017 delivered in CRP No.14 of 2017 to the defendant No.1 prior to filing of such petition as contemplated. With these observations and direction, this petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the learned for the parties on special consideration.