JUDGMENT : Bipin Chander Negi, J. The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 11.3.2024, whereby the right of the present petitioner to file reply had been struck off. 2. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended with the petition. 3. The controversy in the case at hand needs to be understood in the context of relevant provisions of the civil procedure code, namely ORDER VIII Rule 1, ORDER XVII Rule 1 whereby written statement is required to be filed within ninety days from the date of service of summons and no more than three adjournment shall be granted to a party during hearing of the suit that to on showing sufficient cause respectively. The same are being reproduced herein below for a ready reference. ORDER VIII Rule 1 reads as follows; 1. Written statement .— The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence: Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons. Order 17 Rule 1 reads as follows; 1. Court may grant time and adjourn hearing .— 1[(1) The court may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of the suit grant time to the parties or to any of them, and may from time to time adjourn the hearing of the suit for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the suit.] 4. Un-doubtedly procedure is a handmaid and not the mistress. Procedure has been codified in a procedural code in order to streamline the adjudicatory process inter-se the parties. The procedure prescribed is to ensure that a fair, reasonable, adequate opportunity is afforded to the parties to a lis to plead and prove their respective case. However procedure cannot be abused and proceedings cannot be un-necessarily protracted to the detriment of the opposing party. 5. Speedy trial requires an efficient justice dispensation system. The procedure prescribed is to ensure that a fair, reasonable, adequate opportunity is afforded to the parties to a lis to plead and prove their respective case. However procedure cannot be abused and proceedings cannot be un-necessarily protracted to the detriment of the opposing party. 5. Speedy trial requires an efficient justice dispensation system. In order to create an efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law, Courts are expected to be diligent and take timely action. 6. Delay, dilatory tactics ensure non-dispensation of timely justice, thereby, shaking the trust and confidence of a litigant in the justice delivery system, Courts are enjoined upon to perform their duties with the object of strengthening the confidence of a common man in the Institution entrusted with the administration of justice. Any effort which weakens the system and shakes the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation has to be discouraged. 7. The suit in the case at hand was filed on 29 th August, 2020. The present petitioner was the defendant No.1 in the suit so filed before the trial Court. He was served in the suit on 09.11.2021. Subsequent thereto, the matter was listed on 27.12.2021, 22.3.2022, 6.4.2022, 7.5.2022. Till 7 th May, 2022, no written statement had been filed on behalf of the present petitioner. 8. Vide order dated 07.05.2022, time was granted to the present petitioner/defendant No.1 to file his written statement on or before 16.06.2022. Thereafter the matter got listed on 16.6.2022, 28.8.2022, 28.10.2022. Till 28.10.2022, no written statement had been filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1. By way of a last opportunity vide order dated 28.10.2022, time to file written statement was afforded and the matter was posted on 18.11.2022. 9. On the aforesaid date (18.11.2022), the petitioner/defendant No.1 did not appear, hence he was proceeded against ex parte. Subsequent to having been proceeded against ex parte, the matter was listed before the trial Court on 20.1.2023, 8.5.2023, 18.5.2023, 26.6.2023, 5.8.2023, 18.9.2023 and 25.09.2023. 10. On 25.09.2023, an application filed on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside ex parte order dated 18.11.2022 was allowed and order dated 18.11.2022 was set aside. The order dated 25.9.2023 is clear and categoric. The petitioner was permitted to join the proceedings. By setting aside order dated 18.11.2022 the parties were relegated to a situation as existed on 18.11.2022. On 25.09.2023, an application filed on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside ex parte order dated 18.11.2022 was allowed and order dated 18.11.2022 was set aside. The order dated 25.9.2023 is clear and categoric. The petitioner was permitted to join the proceedings. By setting aside order dated 18.11.2022 the parties were relegated to a situation as existed on 18.11.2022. After setting aside of ex-parte order dated 18.11.2022, the matter was posted for recording of evidence. 11. From a perusal of the order sheets appended alongwith the present petition and as referred to hereinabove, it is evident that opportunity to file written statement by way of last opportunity was afforded vide order dated 28.10.2022. The last opportunity so granted, had permitted the present petitioner/defendant No.1 to file his written statement before the trial Court on or before 18.11.2022. The said order dated 28.10.2022 remains un-assailed. Hence on 25.9.2023, after setting aside of order dated 18.11.2022 written statement should have been filed forthwith on behalf of the petitioner. 12. In terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sangram Singh vs. Election Commission of India reported as AIR 1955 SC 425 , being proceeded ex parte means ex parte for the day and not for the entire proceedings. A party proceeded against ex parte is free to join proceedings at any stage. It is only when a party which has been proceeded against ex parte wants the clock to be reversed and brought to a stage wherefrom the party had been proceeded against ex parte that an application is required to be filed in order to set aside the same. In this case at best, petitioner was permitted to join proceedings from 18.11.2022, however, as had been stated supra, right to file written statement by way of last opportunity had been granted by the previous order dated 28.10.2022, which remains un-assailed. Even on 25.9.2023, no written statement on behalf of the petitioner was filed. 13. From a perusal of the order sheets after 25.9.2023, the matter was listed on 9.11.2023, 24.11.2023, 11.12.2023 and then on 6.1.2024. On the previous dates prior to 6.1.2024, the Presiding Officer was not present. Interestingly on 6.1.2024, the petitioner/defendant No. 1 was once again granted time to file his written statement. The same had been done by the trial court oblivious of previous orders. Time to file written statement was granted till 11.3.2024. On the previous dates prior to 6.1.2024, the Presiding Officer was not present. Interestingly on 6.1.2024, the petitioner/defendant No. 1 was once again granted time to file his written statement. The same had been done by the trial court oblivious of previous orders. Time to file written statement was granted till 11.3.2024. Since on 11.3.2024, no written statement had been filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant No.1, hence, the right of the present petitioner to file reply had been struck off. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.3.2024, the present petition has been preferred on 28 th September, 2024. 14. It is a matter of record that the right to file written statement of the petitioner/defendant number 1 was closed by the learned Trial Court after affording him numerous opportunities to file the same. If a party does not file written statement despite reasonable opportunities granted to it, then the Court is not supposed to wait till eternity for the party to file the written statement. It is a conscious act of a party not to file its written statement and the consequences thereof have to be borne by the party. 15. The callousness, indifference and laxity on the part of the petitioner in pursuing his case before the trial Court cannot be tolerated. The litigant must help the Court by an effective participation for expeditious disposal of the case. Even otherwise the present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Article 227 of the Constitution reads as under:- “227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court (1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories interrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may— (a) call for returns from such courts; (b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and (c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may— (a) call for returns from such courts; (b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and (c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. (3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practicing therein: Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision or any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor. (4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.” 16. The scope of jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has been expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: (i) In Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524 , it has been held as under:- “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” (iii) In Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181 , it has been held as under:- “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute conclusion, for its own that of decision the on facts inferior court and or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” 17. Thus, from the above stated exposition of law, it is clear that this Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice. 18. In the case at hand, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition to invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 19. In view of the aforesaid, I see no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 11.03.2024. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous, applications, if any. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 23.05.2025.