Courts Shouldn’t Shut Out Cases On Mere Technicalities, Can’t Let Party Suffer Due To Fault Committed By Their Counsel: Supreme Court

The Apex Court was considering an Appeal challenging the final judgement of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Writ Petition and upholding the order of the District Judge. The High Court had effectively dismissed the restoration application, confirming the ex parte decree passed in favor of the Respondent.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale asserted, “The High Court has erred in taking a hyper technical view and concluding that there was violation of mandatory provision of law. Endorsing such a view would effectively mean ignoring the purpose of judicial procedure. The procedure cannot stand in the way of achieving a just and fair outcome. In the present case, the Appellant acted bona fide and diligently. His conduct does not violate any rule of law.”

AOR Nikhil Jain represented the Appellants while AOR Krishna Ballabh Thakur represented the Respondent.

The Respondent-Plaintiff Prithviraj Singh had instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of a sale deed as null and void on the ground of fraud played by the Appellant-defendant. The Plaintiff averred that his grandfather was a bhumidhar with transferable rights of two agricultural plots. In the name of providing treatment, Appellant-defendant Dwarika Prasad took the plaintiff’s grandfather and got a sale deed executed by his grandfather by way of fraud in his favour. The Court of First Additional Munsif decreed the suit ex parte and declared the sale deed in question to be void and unenforceable.

The Appellant-defendant filed restoration application under Order IX Rule 13 and Section 151 of CPC stating that he was uneducated and an old aged person unable to understand Court proceedings. He had put full faith in his previous counsel Shri Ramgopal Singh. However, the Respondent and his brothers publicly said to the Appellant that they have got the sale deed cancelled and have also got the name of the Appellant removed. The Appellant then appointed Ashok Kumar Verma as his counsel who found the copy of the ex parte decree and this is how the restoration application came to be filed. It was the appellant’s case that his previous counsel played fraud over him as he conspired with Respondent.

The Trial Court allowed the restoration application and set aside the ex parte decree. However, the Respondent’s Revision under section 115 of CPC against the order of the Trial Court claiming that the restoration application was time barred and the Appellant had knowledge of ex parte decree since beginning, was allowed. The High Court confirmed this view. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

At the outset, the Bench said, “We are of the opinion that the High Court has erred in upholding the order of the Additional District Judge. The Trial Court had rightly allowed the restoration application filed by the Appellant under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC. It is well settled that Courts should not shut out cases on mere technicalities but rather afford opportunity to both sides and thrash out the matter on merits. Further, we cannot let the party suffer due to negligent or fault committed by their counsel.”

The Bench observed that in the present case, the appellant trusted his counsel to manage the suit proceedings. However, he was not made aware of the ex-parte decree by his previous counsel. It was only after the appointment of the new counsel, the appellant got to know about the exparte decree. “Therefore, the Additional Sessions Judge ought not to have exercised the revisional jurisdiction in interfering with the order of the Trial Court where it had exercised its discretion in setting aside the ex-parte decree for justifiable reasons accepting the reasons given by the defendant-appellant”, it said.

Noting that there was no need to file a separate application for condonation of delay in the present case as well, the Bench held that the High Court had erred in taking a hyper technical view. As per the Bench, the appellant did act bona fide and diligently.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned order passed by High Court and restored that of the Trial Court. It also directed, “The Trial Court to proceed with O.S. No.81 of 1988 in accordance with law. As the suit is an old one, we further direct the Trial Court to expedite hearing of the suit and make an endeavour to decide the same within a year.”

Cause Title: Dwarika Prasad (D) Thr.Lrs. v. Prithvi Raj Singh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1030)

Appearance:

Appellants: AOR Nikhil Jain, Advocates Divya Jain, Prashant Mohla

Respondent: AOR Krishna Ballabh Thakur

Click here to read/download Judgment