The Supreme Court recently upheld a decision by the Calcutta High Court permitting a defendant in a civil suit to file a written statement after a 17-year delay, attributing the delay to confusion caused by the High Court Registry.

The Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, emphasized that procedural technicalities should not hinder substantive justice.

The Court noted that the delay was not due to any fault on the part of the defendant but rather stemmed from an erroneous entry on the High Court’s official website, which incorrectly indicated that the case had been disposed of in the year 2000.

The defendant had refrained from filing a written statement after the High Court’s website showed the case as closed. However, when the case unexpectedly resurfaced on January 17, 2017, the defendant sought permission to submit the written statement, which was initially denied by a Single Judge of the High Court. The Division Bench, however, found sufficient cause to allow the filing, recognizing the confusion created by the Registry’s error.

The plaintiff subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the defendant had failed to file the written statement in 2000 when first served with summons and that the prolonged delay should not be excused. However, the Apex Court sided with the defendant, noting that the case status shown as disposed of on March 1, 2000, was corroborated by the High Court’s subsequent orders and reports from its Registry.

“In the present instance, we find that the sequence of events clearly indicates that the respondent cannot be said to be solely at fault, as it was under the impression that the suit already stood disposed of,” the Court observed.

The Court also pointed out that the case’s sudden listing after years of inactivity prompted the defendant to take the necessary steps and that the confusion caused by the Registry's misinformation justified the delay in filing the written statement.

Emphasizing the importance of justice over procedural technicalities, the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal, allowing the defendant’s written statement to be considered in the ongoing suit. "It must not be lost sight of that ultimately, procedural technicalities have to give way to substantive justice. Procedure, well and truly, is only the handmaiden of justice. The discretion granted to Courts has to be exercised on a case-specific basis. Undisputedly, ‘procedural laws are primarily intended to achieve the ends of justice and, normally, not to shut the doors of justice for the parties at the very threshold," the Court said.

Furthermore, the Court noted, "Admittedly, the case was listed suddenly after a prolonged gap on 17.01.2017, whereafter that the respondent filed an appropriate application. Moreover, the reports dated 25.01.2017 and 11.05.2023 submitted by the Registry of the High Court indicate that (a) the official website of the High Court did indeed state that the suit had been disposed of on 01.03.2000, and; (b) the High Court could not, for reasons best known to it alone, trace out any orders in the file of the suit pre-17.01.2017. Stricto sensu, the situation that prevailed is a direct result of the confusion created by the Registry of the High Court. In this view, it would be improper to not permit the taking on record of the Written Statement of the respondent apropos the suit."

Cause Title: PIC Departmentals Pvt. Ltd. v. Sreeleathers Pvt. Ltd. [SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.14902 OF 2024]

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Sudhanshu DhuliaJustice Ahsanuddin Amaah

Sukriti Mishra