ORDER : 1. This Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the 3rd Civil Judge, Clas-1, Surajpur, District Surajpur in Civil Suit No.57-A/2012 whereby for non-payment of PF, the suit has been dismissed under Order 9 Rule 5 of CPC, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’). 2. Shri Sinha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the the Petitioner has instituted a suit in the year 2012 for declaration of title and partition in which Defendant No.7/State is a formal party. He further submits that the trial Court has directed the Plaintiff to pay PF for issuance of notice to the State/Defendant No.7 but the Plaintiff has failed to do so, therefore, the trial Court has, by the impugned order, dismissed the suit in respect of all the Defendants which is not permissible under Order 9 Rule 5 of the CPC. He further submits that since Defendant No.7 is only a formal party and no relief was sought against them, therefore, dismissal of the suit is not justified and prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, Shri Gupta submits that the Petitioner has not complied with the order of the Court below for several years and therefore, the impugned order was passed and if the Revision is to be allowed, then suitable cost has to be imposed upon him. 4. Ms. Khalkho submits that State is a formal party. 5. Order 9 Rule 5 of the CPC stipulates that on non-payment of PF, the Court shall make an order that the suit be dismissed as against such Defendant, unless the Plaintiff has within the said period, satisfied the Court that-- (a) he has failed after using his best endeavours to discover the residence of the defendant, who has not been served, or (b) such defendant is avoiding service of process, or (c) there is any other sufficient cause for extending the time, in which case the Court may extend the time for making such application for such period as it thinks fit in such case the plaintiff may (subject to the law of limitation) bring a fresh suit. 6. In the present case, no relief was sought against the State, which is a formal party, though the Petitioner has failed to comply with the direction of the Court for paying the PF and thus delayed the trial. 6. In the present case, no relief was sought against the State, which is a formal party, though the Petitioner has failed to comply with the direction of the Court for paying the PF and thus delayed the trial. It is settled law that interest of justice be given utmost importance and procedure should not outweigh substantive justice, therefore, this Court thinks appropriate to impose a cost of Rs.1,000/- upon the Petitioner, to be payable with the District Legal Services Authority as a pre-condition. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and Civil Suit No.57-A/2012 passed by the 3rd Civil Judge, Class-I, Surajpur is restored to its original number. The Petitioner is given an opportunity to pay PF for serving Respondent No.7/State. Learned State Counsel is directed to take appropriate course of action for proper representation of the State in such suit. Parties are directed to appear before the concerned Court on 19.12.2022. It is made clear that if the cost imposed upon the Petitioner is not deposited before the District Legal Services Authority, then this order shall lose its efficacy. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the instant Writ Petition stands disposed of.