JUDGMENT : (KARDAK ETE, J.) Heard Mr. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Nikam, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the order dated 20.08.2024 passed in Misc. Case No. 14/2024 arising out of T.S. No. 08/2016, by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ziro, District Lower Subansiri, Arunachal Pradesh, whereby, the review petition seeking review of the order dated 23.01.2024 and 24.01.2024 with a prayer to allow the petitioner to examine and adduce evidence has been rejected. 3. The case in brief is that the respondent herein filed a Title Suit being T.S. No. 08/2016 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ziro and the petitioner has been arrayed as defendant No.3. The claim of the respondent in the Title Suit is that his land at Harakso, Juli, Tor, Nguduk Yorbe, Suikhi Happa, Hokagaab, Moya, Pong, Herikh which was inherited from his forefather late Pegmir Lel. The suit has been instituted in the capacity of duly authorized descendant of late Pegmir Lel families claiming that the land was given to Late Pegmir Lel by Late Yowa Tegii in lieu of bridal price which could not be returned to late Pegmir Lel and since then, the land was under the possession and ownership of late Pegmir Lel. 4. It is the claim of the Respondent that some member of Yowa Clan headed by one Yowa Kumar without knowing the facts started reclaiming the land from the descendents of Late Pegmir Lel before the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Raga. Consequently, a Mel/local case was held in the year 2014. However, Shri Yowa Khan the eldest son of Late Yowa Tegii @ Jugii gave a statement on 17.02.2014 that the land mentioned above belongs to family of Late Pegmir Lel. Hence the matter was resolved between them. It is alleged that the defendants in the suit taking advantage of the dispute between Yowa Clan and Late Pegmir Lel families started encroaching upon the suit land. It is further alleged that the defendants have no legal right over the land and that they are only in permissive possession on the land from the plaintiffs. It is alleged that the defendants in the suit taking advantage of the dispute between Yowa Clan and Late Pegmir Lel families started encroaching upon the suit land. It is further alleged that the defendants have no legal right over the land and that they are only in permissive possession on the land from the plaintiffs. Against the petitioner, who has been arrayed as defendants No.3, the particular allegation is that of encroachment of land called Komu Pobu, a part of suit land, near the resident of the plaintiff. 5. The petitioner filed a written statement as a defendant No.3, denying the allegations and particularly stating that he along with other clan relatives are the actual owners of the suit land and he has been in possession of his land since time immemorial. He has been in possession of the land after inheriting from his parents and since then, it is under his uninterrupted and peaceful possession. It is also stated that he has planted cardamom and local bamboo in his garden. The Anchal Samiti Member of Ripari Anchal Samiti and GB of Ripari, who knows the suit land has issued a certificate declaring that the suit land belonged to the defendant. The plaintiff never raised objection to the possession of suit land by the defendant till 2014. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent is claiming the suit land including land of defendants, who are residing and cultivating in the respective land on the basis of declaration made by Shri Yowa Khan on 21.02.2014. Sri Yowa Khan, who is staying at Yazali far away from the suit land, which is 100 km approximately from the suit land, has no knowledge about the suit land. Moreover, Shri Yowa Khan is not an authorized person to declare the land of defendant as land of plaintiff. As such declaration made by Shri Yowa Khan is invalid and illegal. The plaintiff never claimed and possessed the suit land before declaration made by Shri Yowa Khan because he was not residing at Harakso Village. He was residing at Linya Village far away from Harakso Village, which is approximately 20 km from Harakso. 7. The issues were framed. Thereafter, the plaintiff evidence was also over. The defendants submitted a list of witnesses in which the petitioner/defendant No.3 was listed as defense witness No.5. He was residing at Linya Village far away from Harakso Village, which is approximately 20 km from Harakso. 7. The issues were framed. Thereafter, the plaintiff evidence was also over. The defendants submitted a list of witnesses in which the petitioner/defendant No.3 was listed as defense witness No.5. Accordingly, the petitioner/defendant No.3 also submitted his examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit. 8. It is the contention of the petitioner on 16/10/2023 the defendant witnesses’ No. 1, 2, and 3 were to be examined, but due to paucity of time, next date was fixed. It was observed in the order that since the aforesaid Title Suit was pending for long time, the defendant's witnesses should be examined on three consecutive days, i.e. on 22/01/24, 23/01/24 and 24/01/24. 9. On 22/01/2024, the defence witnesses Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were examined and discharged and order was passed that on the next date, i.e. 23/01/24, the defence witnesses’ No. 4, 5 and 6 would be examined/cross examined. 10. It is the contention of the petitioner that on 23.01.2024, the petitioner/defendant No.3 was to be examined. However, he could not attend the Court as he was on medical emergency of his relative at Naharlagun. On that day, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ziro, dropped the petitioner/defendant No.3 as DW.5 from the list of witnesses. On 24.01.2024 a oral prayer was made by the learned council for the petitioner to examine the petitioner/ defendant No.3 as DW.5. However, the prayer was summarily rejected. 11. Under such circumstances, the petitioner/defendant No.3 filed Misc. Case no 14/2024 in TS No. 08/2016 praying for review of orders dated 23.01.2024 and 24.01.2024 with a prayer to allow his examination as DW 5 as he could not appear before the Court on 23.01.2024 and 24.01.2024 due to medical ground, as he was busy at Naharlagun looking after his sick brother-in-law, who is suffering from various ailments, and was found unconscious in the toilet due to profuse bleeding, who then had to be urgently taken to Hospital and admitted for medical care. As his health condition is still very critical, the family members decided to take him outside the State of Arunachal Pradesh for better medical treatment. As his health condition is still very critical, the family members decided to take him outside the State of Arunachal Pradesh for better medical treatment. For these reasons, the petitioner/ defendant no.3 could not appear before the Court on the fixed date on 23.01 2024 and 24.01.2024, as he was looking after his sick brother-in-law at Naharlagun and sought for review of the order dated 23.01.2024, by which, the petitioner has been deemed dropped from the list of witness and also the consequential order dated 24.01.2024, whereby, the evidence of defendant No.3 has been closed, and to allow the Petitioner to appear before the Court as witness for his cross examination by the respondent. 12. It is the contention of the petitioner that his deposition in affidavit has already been submitted before the Court and same has been served to the respondent/plaintiff. If petitioner is not allowed to be witness to prove his case, the defendants/petitioner would be highly prejudiced, which will not be possible for the Court to complete and effective adjudication of the case without taking complete evidence of the petitioner, as it is necessary that both the parties should get equal opportunity to prove their case by adducing their evidences for the ends of justice. 13. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ziro, after hearing the parties disposed of the Misc case No.13/24 and Misc case No.14/24 arising out T.S No. 08/2016, while the Misc case No.13/24 was allowed but the Misc case No.14/24 has been dismissed against which this revision petition is filed. 14. Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order dated 20.08.2024 does not show that the review application was passed under the parameters provided for review under the law. There is no finding that there was any laxity in bringing on records the medical documents on which the review was based. Since, the Petitioner was busy in medical treatment on 23.01.2024 and 24.01.2024, the documents could not be brought on record on those dates. The learned trial Court only made assumption that since the documents were one week prior to those dates, it could not be taken into account. The veracity of those documents were not tested except by self assumption of the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court only made assumption that since the documents were one week prior to those dates, it could not be taken into account. The veracity of those documents were not tested except by self assumption of the learned trial Court. Therefore, the order rejecting the review has been passed without proper exercise of the jurisdiction of review provided under the law and as such it is amenable to the power of revision by this Hon’ble Court. 15. Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel, submits that the learned trial Court erroneously held that the petitioner was absent for three consecutive days, i.e. 22.01.2024, 23.01.2024 and 24.01.2024, whereas only 23.01.2024 was the date fixed for the petitioner's examination. On 22.01.2024 other witnesses were examined and on 24.01.2024, the petitioner could not have been examined, even, if he would have been present as he was already dropped as witness vide order dated 23.01.24. 16. Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel, submits that in view of the illustration in section 114(g) of the evidence Act, 1872, (which allows presumption by a Court of falsehood of against party who could give evidence but refrains from doing so), significant prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. This is because the petitioner is not merely a witness but one of the defendants in the suit. Thus, by disallowing his examination vide orders dated 23.01.2024 and 24.01.2024, without providing any further opportunity, the learned trial Court has ignored the settled position of law that procedure is the handmaid of justice. The Hon’ble Courts must always lean toward giving full opportunity to a party unless it causes serious prejudice to the opposite party. 17. Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel, submits that there is no finding in the orders dated 23.01.2024 and 24.01.2024 by the learned trial Court that the evidence of the petitioner was not necessary for arriving at just decision. It is a settled law that this ought to be the paramount consideration while deciding whether to allow or disallow examination/recall/re-examination of witnesses. 18. In support of her submissions, Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) Anabik Gupta and Ors. Vs. Swapan Saha reported in (2011) 3 GLR 523. (ii) Abdul Jalil Laskar Vs. Md. Monir Uddin Laskar and Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Gau 1448. 18. In support of her submissions, Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) Anabik Gupta and Ors. Vs. Swapan Saha reported in (2011) 3 GLR 523. (ii) Abdul Jalil Laskar Vs. Md. Monir Uddin Laskar and Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Gau 1448. (iii) K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palaanisamy reported in (2011) 11 SCC 275 & (iv) Sugandhi (dead) by Legal Representatives vs. P. Rajkumar reported in (2020) 10 SCC 706 19. On the other hand, Mr. T. Nikam, learned counsel for the respondent, while first adverting to merit of suit, submits that the respondent and all the descendants of late Pegmir Lel are residing at Harakso. The Harakso land is owned and possessed by respondent family after inherited from the Late Yowa Tegii @ Jigii as a cost of Mithun taken by them. It was petitioner who trespassed in certain pocket of the land possessed by the respondent/plaintiff's family. 20. He submits that the local Mel was held at Boasimla and Raga consecutively under the arbitrators. During this Mel, the petitioner was present and witnessed the settlement. Every minute proceedings of the local case are in the knowledge of the present petitioner. Out of brotherhood feeling, petitioner was allowed to live temporarily in the suit land. He submits that respondent denies that petitioner/defendant No.3 along with other members has owned and possessed the suit land after inheriting from his parents. In fact local Mel was conducted on 19.03.2014 at Harakso, and at Mel House within the premises of the Office of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Raga supervised by three PI's (Political Interpreter) wherein, present petitioner along with all other defendants were present and witnessed the settlement. Upon receipt of complaint from the present petitioner, dated 08.10.2014, Shri Yowa Khan, eldest son of Hechi Yowa Clan made clarification before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Raga on 15.10.2014 declaring the suit land in favour of respondent based on historical facts and evidences. Petitioner did not file any complain against the declaration of Shri Yowa Khan dated 03.03.2014 before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ziro, Mel Decision dated 19.03.2014, and Settlement Agreement dated 08.12.2014. 21. Coming to the present case, he submits that petitioner/defendant No.3 has not informed the court about the medical emergency on the day when the matter was fixed. He has not adduced any documentary proof showing cogent reason for his absence. 21. Coming to the present case, he submits that petitioner/defendant No.3 has not informed the court about the medical emergency on the day when the matter was fixed. He has not adduced any documentary proof showing cogent reason for his absence. No steps were taken. On the day fixed, learned counsel for the petitioner has not prayed to the court for examination of DW-5 on some other day. Therefore, learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, vide its order dated 23.01.2024 has rightly dropped the petitioner as DW-5. It is only on 24.01.2024, the counsel for the petitioner has made verbal submission to allow him to examine DW-5, without any steps and any documentary proof. Based on records, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, has passed the order dated24.01.2024 for closure of defense evidence. 22. The petitioner has filed the Misc. Case No.14/24 of TS No.08/2016 only on dated 21.02.2024 with a prayer to allow him to examine DW-5, that too after nearly one month's period. The petitioner has not disclosed that his brother-in- law was admitted in the hospital on 23.01.2024 and 24.01.2024. In fact, his brother-in-law has many brothers and sisters. On careful perusal of the documents relied on by the petitioner, the patient had undergone few tests on 08.01.2024 and 15.01.2024. There is no proof that his brother-in-law was admitted in the hospital and there was no one to take care of the patient except himself. Hence, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, has rightly applied his judicial mind and closed the evidence of the defendants. 23. Mr. T. Nikam, learned counsel, submits that the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, has accommodated sufficient time to exercise the right of the petitioner to adduced his evidences, but it was petitioner himself who has waived his own right. The petitioner has failed to produce cogent proof showing that he could not attend the court hearing on 23.01.2024 and 24.01.2024. Moreover, court cannot review its two orders at a time in terms of section-114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner/defendant No.3 has not persuaded the court with proof that on the day fixed for evidence, he was busy in medical emergency of his brother-in-law, who was not even admitted in the hospital. Moreover, court cannot review its two orders at a time in terms of section-114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner/defendant No.3 has not persuaded the court with proof that on the day fixed for evidence, he was busy in medical emergency of his brother-in-law, who was not even admitted in the hospital. Even on the next day, i.e. 24.01.2024, petitioner could have appeared before the court with steps and prayed the court to allow him to depose his evidences, but no such steps were taken. Therefore, learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, has not committed any error in law and fact. 24. He submits that the petitioner filed application for review under Order- XLVII, Rule (1) of Code of Civil Procedure for alteration and modification of order dated 23.01.2024 and 24.01.2024. On plain reading of section-114 and Order-XLVII of Code of Civil Procedure, he submits that the court below has not committed any error in law. The petitioner has failed to disclosed the facts that besides him, there is no one to look after his brother-in law. Even if so, he could have taken necessary steps with a prayer to grant him more time to record his evidences, but same was not done. The Title Suit No.08/2016 is pending for many years. It were defendants who did not filed list of witnesses in time. However, court has taken lenient view and allowed the petitioner/defendant to file list of defendant witnesses even after closure of plaintiff witnesses. It was petitioner who had remained absent from the hearing without steps on multiple occasions. Misc. case No.14 of 2024 for alteration and modification of Order 23.01.2024 and 24.01.2024 having been filed after almost 1 (one) month later, by waiving his right, the law of the land should not permit liberty to adduce his evidence after closure of defendant's evidence. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, has judiciously applied his mind. There is no any ambiguity, irregularity, error apparent on the face of records or violation of the laid down procedure in the orders dated 23.01.2024, 24.01.2024 and 20.08.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division. Therefore, present petition is liable to be dismissed. 25. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 26. Therefore, present petition is liable to be dismissed. 25. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 26. Apart from procedural and technical consideration of the ground of review and impugned order passed by the learned Civil Court, the issue to be determined in the present case is in a narrow compass as the issue is as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to an opportunity to adduce evidence and examination being defendant for arriving at a just decision of the Title Suit or would there be any serious prejudice caused to the respondent/ plaintiff if the petitioner is allowed an opportunity to adduce evidence and examine him as defendant. 27. Record reveals that the respondent has instituted the Title Suit No. 08/2016 against the defendants and the petitioner has been arrayed as defendant no.3 in the said Title Suit. The petitioner as the defendant no.3 against whom an allegation of encroachment and illegal possession of some portion of the suit land, has filed his written statement and also deposition in affidavit. Obviously, after closure of Plaintiff witnesses, the Defense witnesses were to be examined. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, has fixed the date for examination/cross-examination of the Defense witnesses on 22.01.2024, which could not be taken up, due to paucity of time. The next date was fixed on 23.01.2024, on which date the Defense witness Nos.4, 5 and 6 were to be examined/cross-examined. Admittedly, the petitioner did not appear on 23.01.2024. The learned Trial Court has passed an order that the defendant witness no.5 is deemed to be dropped. Thereafter, case was fixed for further proceeding for examination of the defense witnesses on 24.01.2024. 28. It is seen that the learned counsel for the petitioner has orally made a prayer that the petitioner be allowed to examine as a Defense witness No. 5. However, the same was not allowed. The petitioner has filed a review petition for review of the said order dropping the petitioner as DW-5, which has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner did not appear on the date fixed for his examination as Defense witness No.5 and there is no ground for allowing him to examine as the ground of review of the order dated 23.01.2024 and 24.01.2024 is found to be not sufficient. The learned Trial Court has held that the ground of the petitioner that he was not able to appear on 23.01.2024 are found to be not sufficient ground as the medical document pertains to one week before the date fixed. 29. The provision of review is provided under Section 114 and Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which is quoted hereunder: “114. Review. — Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved, — (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Court, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit. ORDER XLVII - REVIEW 1. Application for review of judgment — (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved— (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order”. 30. Bare reading of the above provisions shows that one of the grounds of review is for any other sufficient reason, on which the court which has passed the order, has the power to review. The word ‘sufficient reason’ is wide enough which, in my view, may include the reason of absent due to medical emergency in the facts of the present case. 31. The word ‘sufficient reason’ is wide enough which, in my view, may include the reason of absent due to medical emergency in the facts of the present case. 31. Admittedly, the petitioner has been arrayed as defendant No.3 in the said Title Suit and has filed his written statement and also deposition in affidavit. Although, the petitioner did not appear on the day fixed for evidence and examination unless serious prejudice is caused to the respondent /plaintiff, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, ought to have allowed petitioner by providing one more opportunity to adduce evidence as the petitioner could show that due to medical emergency of his relative’s, he was engaged at Naharlagun, for doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical considerations. The approach of the learned Civil Judge, in my view, appears to be too technical in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is nothing on records, for that matter, no plea is taken by the respondent/plaintiff, to show that serious prejudice would cause to the respondent/plaintiff if the petitioner is allowed to adduce evidence. It is axiomatic that for arriving at a just decision and unless serious prejudice is caused to the adversary party, the courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. 32. It is the settled principle of law that all the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the Statute, the provisions of the CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice. 33. In the present case, it appears that the petitioner could not appear on 23.01.2024 due to medical problem of his brother-in-law as he was at Naharlagun. Materials on record supports that there was sufficient reason for a petitioner’s absence on a date, when a suit was fixed for evidence. 33. In the present case, it appears that the petitioner could not appear on 23.01.2024 due to medical problem of his brother-in-law as he was at Naharlagun. Materials on record supports that there was sufficient reason for a petitioner’s absence on a date, when a suit was fixed for evidence. Therefore, the learned Civil Judge, ought to have allowed further time by providing an opportunity to examine and adduce evidence as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that the procedure is after all handmaid of justice and when an application is made for review shows the reason for absence on the previous date and also explains the same with documents for the absence on the date, when the suit was fixed. 34. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that both the orders dated 23.01.2024 and 24.01.2024 are orders which are erroneous and the errors were apparent on the face of the record. Such orders were reviewable as the petitioner could disclose the reasons as to why he had been absent on the day fixed and filed the review within time. 35. In view of the conclusion arrived herein above, I deem it not necessary to discuss the case laws relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in detail. 36. Having viewed above and considering that due to medical case of his brother-in-law, the petitioner could not present on the day fixed for examination of witnesses and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court as well as the rights of the parties as regard to the suit, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the present petitioner may be granted one more opportunity to examine and adduce evidence. Thus, it is provided that the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Ziro shall allow the petitioner one more opportunity to examine and adduce evidence. However, with a cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only, to be paid to the respondent/plaintiff. 37. Consequently, the impugned order dated 20.08.2024 passed in Misc. case. No. 14/2024 arising out of T.S. No. 08/2016, by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ziro, is hereby set aside and quashed. 38. The revision petition stands allowed and disposed of.