Non-compliance With Procedural Requirements On Pleadings For Relief Shouldn't Entail Automatic Dismissal Unless Relevant Statute Mandates So: SC
|The Supreme Court has reiterated that non-compliance with any procedural requirement relating to a pleading, memorandum of appeal, application, or petition for relief should not entail automatic dismissal or rejection unless the relevant statute or rule so mandates.
The Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration after observing that the Punjab and Haryana High Court was in error in dismissing a revision petition in the case regarding execution of a final decree from a partition suit. “The impugned orders of the High Court dismissing the revision application are to be interfered with, for that instance, the procedure has managed to compromise the substantive right of the objector,” it observed.
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sanjay Karol held, “The ground taken by the High Court to dismiss the revision application is that the appellant herein misapplied the provisions in filing his objections before the executing court, inasmuch as the objection petition mentioned both Section 47 as also Order XXI Rule 58 and 97 of the CPC. The High Court found that both these sets of provisions could not be applied together given that the method of assailing the orders passed therein are different and cannot co-exist. Whilst looking at it purely from a procedural point of view, this may have some merit; however, as has been long established, procedural irregularity cannot defeat substantive rights or cannot subvert substantive justice.”
Advocate Anunnay Mehta represented the appellant, while Advocate A.P. Mohanty appeared for the respondents.
The dispute stemmed from a 1987 civil suit filed for a one-fourth share of land, which was the subject of a previous litigation. The Additional District Judge had allowed an appeal that overturned an order from the Civil Judge, Junior Division, which had sustained objections to an execution petition filed to enforce the final decree.
The dispute was regarding the issue of the execution of a final decree related to the partition of property. The appellants had filed objections to the execution petition on the grounds that they were in possession of part of the disputed land by virtue of a prior civil court decree.
The Supreme Court reiterated the settled law as observed in Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra (1990) that normally a decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction, after adjudication on merits of the rights of the parties, operates as res judicata in a subsequent suit or proceedings and binds the parties or the persons claiming right, title or interest from the parties.
The Court relied on its decision in Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh (2006), wherein it was held, “Non-compliance with any procedural requirement relating to a pleading, memorandum of appeal or application or petition for relief should not entail automatic dismissal or rejection, unless the relevant statute or rule so mandates. Procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure, a handmaiden to justice, should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use.”
Consequently, the Court remarked, “When a litigant approaches the Court, what he is interested in getting is not the imprimatur of the Court on his right over a certain amount of money or in this case property, what he actually wants is the actual money and/or property, and the rights that flow from possessing it, i.e., enjoyment of the same in whatever manner he sees fit.”
Cause Title: Joginder Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs v. Dr. Virinderjit Singh Gill (Dead) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 814)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Anunnay Mehta, Alim Anvar and Vinayak; AOR Nishe Rajen Shonker
Respondents: AOR Aftab Ali Khan and Arunima Dwivedi; Advocates A.P. Mohanty and Anunaya Mehta