AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Petitioner is plaintiff in Original Suit No. 576 of 2017. She is aggrieved by an order passed by learned Trial Court on 31.5.2022. By the said order, defendants’ application seeking recall of order dated 9.12.2021 was allowed and their written statement was accepted on record subject to payment of cost of rupees five thousand.
Petitioner contends that learned Trial Court erred in allowing the application filed by defendants and their written statement should not have been accepted on record.
Perusal of record indicates that while rejecting defendants’ application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC vide order dated 9.12.2021, learned Trial Court observed that due to non-filing of written statement by defendants, the Court has passed order on 25.4.2018. In the order dated 25.4.2018, it was observed by learned Trial Court that the time of 90 days for filing the written statement has expired.
In their application seeking recall of the order dated 9.12.2021, defendants contended that they could not file written statement in time due to the pandemic caused by Covid-19 and also due to pendency of their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned Trial Court observed that cases should be decided on merits and not on technicalities and allowed the said application subject to payment of cost of rupees five thousand.
It is now well settled that proviso to Rule 1 Order 8 CPC is directory, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash v. Nanhku, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480. It is also well settled that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice, which are meant to facilitate the course of justice and not to scuttle the same. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah, AIR 1955 SC 425, held as under:
“16. Now a code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is procedure, something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends: not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical a construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provided always that justice is done to both sides) lest the very means designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it.”
Similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahila Ramkali Devi & Others v. Nandram (DEAD) Through Legal Representatives & Others, (2015) 13 SCC 132, wherein it has been held as under:
“20. It is well settled that rules of procedure are intended to be handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure. The court always gives relief to amend the pleading of the party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated for by an order of cost.”
Learned Trial Court has given valid reasons for allowing defendants’ application and accepting their written statement on record. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with a discretionary order passed by learned Trial Court.
Thus, there is no scope for interference in the matter. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is dismissed.