JUDGMENT : J. C. DOSHI, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the request and consent of both learned advocates appearing for respective parties, this writ petition is taken up for final consideration. 3. By way of this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the present writ petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 07.02.2023 passed below application Exh: 49 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kachchh in Commercial Civil Suit no. 49 of 2022. By the order dated 06.02.2023 passed below Exh: 49, learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kachchh dismissed the application of the Org. Plaintiff seeking issuance of witness summon and also imposed a cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid in District Legal Services Authority, Bhuj. 4. The brief facts of the present case are that petitioner Org. plaintiff i.e. Laxmi Enterprise is a partnership firm duly registered under the provisions of Partnership Act, engaged in the business of exporting food items to various countries. The petitioner-Org. plaintiff was intending to export Groundnuts Kernel to Philippines and for the purpose to secure risk, the petitioner-Org. plaintiff has purchased three different policies from the respondent dated 26.07.2021, 02.08.2021 and 10.08.2021. 4.1 The petitioner had exported groundnuts Kernel from Mundra Port to Manila North Port, Philippines through Cargo. When Cargo, containing Groundnuts Kernel, reached to Manila North Port, allegedly 380 bags of Groundnuts Kernel were found wet by Smith Bell Corporation, Philippines, as Liyods agents and thereafter, the survey was carried out. Subsequent thereto, the consignee of Cargo has rejected consignment to consider as total loss. The petitioner, having found rejection of consignment, filed/lodged the claim with one Mr. Prakash Thakkar, being a broker of the respondent. It has been informed that two were claims were accepted as non-standard basis at 20% deduction. However, third claim of petitioner-Org. Plaintiff was not accepted. This issue has been brought to the dispute by the petitioner-Org. Plaintiff by filing Commercial Civil Suit No. 49 of 2022 for recovery of money against respondent before the Commercial Court, Kachchh Bhuj. It has been informed that two were claims were accepted as non-standard basis at 20% deduction. However, third claim of petitioner-Org. Plaintiff was not accepted. This issue has been brought to the dispute by the petitioner-Org. Plaintiff by filing Commercial Civil Suit No. 49 of 2022 for recovery of money against respondent before the Commercial Court, Kachchh Bhuj. 4.2 In the aforenoted Commercial Civil Suit, the pleading were over, and thereafter, learned Principal Senior Civil Judge in Commercial Civil Suit, has passed an order below Exh: 23 and scheduled the case management. This order was passed on 02.01.2023, wherein, it has been directed that Examination-in- Chief of the plaintiff’s witness and defendant’s witness to be filed on or before 06.02.2023. 4.3 The petitioner-Org. Plaintiff has filed an application for summoning the witness on 06.02.2023, stating various reason for delay in filling the application for summoning the witness Exh:49 , however, learned Principal Senior Civil Judge did not incline to accept the application and rejected the same with awarding the cost of Rs.25,000/-. 4.4 Hence, this petition at the instance of petitioner-Org. plaintiff. 5. Heard learned advocate Mr. Harshit S. Bhatt appearing for petitioner-Org. Plaintiff and learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati representing the respondent-Org. Defendant. 6. According to learned advocate Mr. Harshit Bhatt, learned Principal Senior Civil Judge has taken pedantic and hyper technical approach in dismissing application below exh: 49. The petitioner Org. plaintiff has stated reason in Exh: 49 for filing it delayedly. The petitioner-Org. plaintiff has categorically stated that father of the petitioner-Org.Plaintiff was not keeping well and as such petitioner-Org.Plaintiff could not adhere to the time limit stated in case management Exh; 23. He would further submit that in view of case management schedule in Exh; 23, the date at 06.02.2023 was fixed to produce the witnesses of the Org. plaintiff. The petitioner-Org.Plaintiff has adhered to that time limit and has produced the affidavit-in-chief of the Org. plaintiff and thereafter has also produced list of witnesses, which petitioner-Org. Plaintiff intend to examine during the trial. However, the learned Court below has ignored this aspect and erroneously dismissed the application. 6.1 Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate would further submit that looking to the phraseology of Order XV-A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short “Code”), it is a directory in nature and it is a procedural aspect. Plaintiff intend to examine during the trial. However, the learned Court below has ignored this aspect and erroneously dismissed the application. 6.1 Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate would further submit that looking to the phraseology of Order XV-A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short “Code”), it is a directory in nature and it is a procedural aspect. He would further submit that leading an evidence is a substantive right of the party and it could not stultify on hyper technical ground. 6.2 Taking this Court to Sub-rule 8 of Order XV of the Code, he submits that in event of non-compliance of schedule of case management, the Court can pass necessary order for imposing the cost by condoning the delay and permit the party to lead the evidence, but the Court below has failed to appreciate this legal aspect and thereby committed an error much less, error of understanding the provisions of law. Upon above submission, learned advocate Mr.Bhatt submit to allow this writ petition and to quash and set aside the order passed below Exh: 49 in Commercial Civil Suit No. 49 of 2022 and to allow that application. 7. To strengthen his submission, Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate refer to and rely upon the judgment of division bench of this Court in the case of Sitaram Fabrication versus Italiya Silk Mill, reported in 2022 Lawsuit(Guj) 7344, more particularly, on paragraph 5.4 to 5.7, which read as under: 5.4 Order XV-A, CPC, under the title ‘Case Management Hearing’ enjoins the court in commercial suit to hold the case management hearing within four weeks from the date of filing of affidavit of admission or denial of documents by the parties to and that the court is required to pass the order regarding the time-table in respect of different stages starting from framing of issues as per the provisions incorporated. Rule 8 is about ‘Consequences of Non- compliance With Orders’ regarding case management’, which reads as under, “Rule. 8- Consequences of non-compliance with orders. Rule 8 is about ‘Consequences of Non- compliance With Orders’ regarding case management’, which reads as under, “Rule. 8- Consequences of non-compliance with orders. — Where any party fails to comply with the order of the Court passed in a Case Management Hearing, the Court shall have the power to— (a) condone such non-compliance by payment of costs to the Court; (b) foreclose the non-compliant party’s right to file affidavits, conduct cross-examination of witnesses, file written submissions, address oral arguments or make further arguments in the trial, as the case may be, or (c) dismiss the plaint or allow the suit where such non-compliance is wilful, repeated and the imposition of costs is not adequate to ensure compliance.” 5.5 It is therefore clear that the court can impose the cost on parties and permit departure from the dates and the schedule of case management. Non compliance of the schedule can therefore be condoned by imposing cost. Before adverting to the powers mentioned in clause (b) and (c) above of foreclosing the right of the parties, to dismiss the plaint on the count of failure, it would be judicious approach to take recourse of clause (a) in larger interest of justice unless the facts regarding breach of the schedule are grave and stark. 5.6 The case management schedule was procedural aspect. At the altar of procedure substantive rights of the parties could not be sacrificed. Right to lead evidence in the suit proceedings is substantive and valuable right. In order to avail the party right to lead evidence, there was nothing erroneous in altering schedule of dates fixed in the case management schedule specially when legitimate cause subsisted. The case management time-table could be deviated if the needs of substantive justice so demand, as was warranted in the present case. 5.7 In the facts and circumstances obtained, the commercial court below could have certainly adopted the course provided in Sub rule (a) of Rule 8 instead of sticking to Sub rule (b). The approach of the court was wooden and pedantic. Closure of right to evidence for the parties could not have been routine or casual order. Closing right to lead evidence for the parties in the suit seriously prejudices such party. In the present case it was valid ground to be considered to grant the time and permit leading of evidence to the petitioner- plaintiff. 8. Per contra, Mr. Closure of right to evidence for the parties could not have been routine or casual order. Closing right to lead evidence for the parties in the suit seriously prejudices such party. In the present case it was valid ground to be considered to grant the time and permit leading of evidence to the petitioner- plaintiff. 8. Per contra, Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate, appearing for the respondent, taking this Court to the order passed below Exh; 23, whereupon, learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kachchh, has scheduled the case management, argued that in view of the order passed by learned Court below dated 02.01.2023, the petitioner-Org. Plaintiff was required to file an application for witness summon within five days therefrom. He would further submits that time line stated in case management is mandatory in nature. 8.1 Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati would further submit that since the petitioner-Org. Plaintiff has failed to adhere the said time limit, stated in the case management, the petitioner- Org. Plaintiff cannot seek condonation of delay for examining the witnesses and in that circumstances, the Court below has not made any error but has rightly passed an order below Exh: 49 in Commercial Civil Suit No. 49 of 2022. 8.2 learned advocate Mr. Nanavati would further submit that since the order passed by the learned Court below is in line of Order XV-A of the Code under the jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being limited, this Court should not interfere with the impugned order and therefore, he submits to dismiss this writ petition. 9. No other and further submissions have been canvassed by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 10. 9. No other and further submissions have been canvassed by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 10. At the outset, let read Rule 8 of Order XV-A of the Code; Rule 8 Order XV-A of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 "Consequences of non-compliance with orders" Where any party fails to comply with the order of the court passed in a Case Management Hearing, the court shall have the power to:- (a) condone such non-compliance by payment of costs to the court; (b) foreclose the non-compliant party's right to file affidavits, conduct cross-examination of witnesses, file written submissions, address oral arguments or make further arguments in the trial, as the case may be; or (c) dismiss the plaint or allow the suit where such non-compliance is willful, repeated and the imposition of costs is not adequate to ensure compliance.” 11. Perusal of Rule 8 clearly reflects that rule is directory in nature. It shows the consequence of non-compliance with the order of case management, means the order of case management, if is not complied with, what consequence can be made. Under Sub Rule (a) of Rule 8 of the Order XV-A, the Court has power to condone such non-compliance by the payment of cost. Thus, it is clear that the Court below was lying power with the condonation of non-compliance by passing order for payment of cost. 12. It is undoubted that leading an evidence is a substantive right of the party and cannot be affected by the procedural lapse until that procedure is made mandatory. Right to lead an evidence, which is valuable and substantive right, can be permitted to the party, by altering the procedure of case management and schedule of the date fixed in the case management, more particularly, when legal and legitimate cause is subsisted. There is nothing wrong in altering schedule of date fixed in the case management. Perusing the Rule 8 of Order XV-A of the Code, the case management time-table could be drifted, if the need of substantive justice, so demand, as it is warranted in the present case. Closing of right to lead the evidence for the party in the suit has serious consequence and prejudices upon such party. 13. It is to be noted that the petitioner-Org. Plaintiff has preferred the application, only after one month of case management is scheduled below Exh; 23. Not permitting the petitioner-Org. Closing of right to lead the evidence for the party in the suit has serious consequence and prejudices upon such party. 13. It is to be noted that the petitioner-Org. Plaintiff has preferred the application, only after one month of case management is scheduled below Exh; 23. Not permitting the petitioner-Org. Plaintiff for leading evidence and issuing summons of witness is harsh and arbitrary order and it affects and prejudice the substantive right of the petitioner-Org. Plaintiff. The petitioner-Org. Plaintiff has not willfully delayed in moving the application below exh: 49. The petitioner-Org. Plaintiff has also averred the reason that his father is not keeping well and therefore he could not prefer the application within the stipulated time period stated in the case management. According to us, it was a sufficient ground, to be considered to permit leading evidence and issuance of summon of witness by observing and following Sub-Rule (a) of Rule 8 of Order XV of the Code. It is trite to note that the learned Court below has passed the order for imposing the cost of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner-Org. Plaintiff and yet learned Court below has not condoned the non-compliance. This is a serious and pretty error on the part of the learned Court below. Once the learned Court below was of the opinion to impose cost, it was incumbent upon learned Court below to follow Sub-Rule (a) of Rule 8 of Order XV of Code and to condone the delay. 14. It is true that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this court enjoins limited supervisory jurisdiction and normally should not interfere with the impugned order, but as noticed here in above, learned court below has committed serious but jurisdictional error which leads to pass order against settled principle of law. Learned Court below has interpreted provision of procedural law on hyper technical consideration and overrides principle of substantial justice. Thus, interference in impugned order is called for. 15. It cannot go unnoticed that all the rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. The language employed in the procedural law may be liberal or stringent, however facts remain that object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In adversarial system of litigation, no party should ordinarily be deprived of, or denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. The language employed in the procedural law may be liberal or stringent, however facts remain that object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In adversarial system of litigation, no party should ordinarily be deprived of, or denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express specific language of statute, the provision of CPC or any other procedural law ought not to be construed in a manner, which would leave the party or the Court helpless to meet situation in the end of substantial justice. It is the morality of the justice at the hands of procedural law troubles a judge's conscience. The humanist rule that the procedural law should be handmaid, not the mistress. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence, procedural, inasmuch as substantive. Whenever technical consideration is pitted with the substantial justice later must be given weight and predominance. 16. In Smt. Rani Kusum Vs. Smt. Kanchan Devi reported in AIR 2005 SC 3304 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “Procedural law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice. 17. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Katiji & Ors. reported in AIR 1987 1353, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that:- Substantial Justice has to be preferred upon procedural technicalities. It has returned finding that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. 18. Hence, in the present case, technical interpretation made by the Court below does not sustain against cause of Substantial Justice, thus application as preferred by petitioner deserves to be allowed. 19. For the foregoing reason and discussion, the order dated 07.02.2023 passed below Exh: 49 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kachchh in Commercial Civil Suit no. 49 of 2022 as far as dismissing the application of the petitioner-Org. Plaintiff is hereby set aside. However, the order of quantifying the cost of Rs.25,000/- and paying it in District Legal Services Authority, Bhuj is maintained. Relief prayed in Exh: 49 filed in Commercial Civil Suit No. 49 of 2022, pending in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, is hereby granted and the petitioner-Org. Plaintiff is hereby set aside. However, the order of quantifying the cost of Rs.25,000/- and paying it in District Legal Services Authority, Bhuj is maintained. Relief prayed in Exh: 49 filed in Commercial Civil Suit No. 49 of 2022, pending in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, is hereby granted and the petitioner-Org. Plaintiff is permitted to get witness summons for the said witnesses, however, petitioner-org. Plaintiff is directed to provide full & complete addresses of the witnesses. It is further directed that the petitioner-org. Plaintiff shall file an affidavit in chief of witnesses as far as possible. It would be open for learned Court below to alter the case management schedule. Rule is made absolute.