Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 693
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Pic Departmentals Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sreeleathers Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 8968 of 2024 [@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.14902 of 2024]
Decided on : 30-07-2024
For the Petitioner(s): Dr. S.muralidhar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Indranil Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Arup Bhattacharyya, Adv. Mr. Palzer Moktan, Adv. Ms. Suparna Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Mrinal Chaudhry, Adv. Ms. Mehar Bedi, Adv. Mr. Kartik, Adv. Ms. Aanchal Tikmani, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Ms. Daisy Hannah, AOR Mr. Sumanta Biswas, Adv. Mr. Bikash Shaw, Adv. Mr. Samarth Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Oindrila Sen, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Written statement – Limitation – Power to extend time for filing Written Statement should not be employed as a matter of course, but with great caution.
(2) Procedural laws are primarily intended to achieve ends of justice and, normally, not to shut doors of justice for parties at the very threshold – Discretion granted to Courts has to be exercised on a case-specific basis.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VIII Rule 1 – Written statement – Limitation – Power to extend time for filing Written Statement should not be employed as a matter of course, but with great caution so that purpose of procedural statute is not defeated and unscrupulous litigants do not abuse process of Court by adopting dilatory tactics – However, same cannot be examined in a strait-jacket/sealed compartment for peculiar facts and circumstances of every case have to be carefully and individually appreciated – Thereafter, Court concerned has to take a call as to whether request made is genuine or, more importantly, whether refusal to accede to such request may lead to eventual miscarriage of justice – Ultimately, procedural technicalities have to give way to substantive justice – Procedure is only handmaiden of justice – Discretion granted to Courts has to be exercised on a case-specific basis. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
Dispute traces its origins to alleged act of putting-up of a signboard by respondent on subject-premises, which according to appellant, obstructed hoarding put up by appellant. Ejectment Suit was filed by TUG Developers seeking ejectment of the appellant from the premises.
Findings of Court:
High Court is requested to proceed with the matter keeping in mind the suit being of the year 1999 without giving any time/indulgence to any of parties, in accordance with law.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
ORDER :
SUDHANSHU DHULIA & AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Leave granted. The sequence of events relevant to resolve the short controversy is noticed below.
2. This dispute traces its origins to the alleged act of putting-up of a signboard by the respondent on the subject-premises1[3 and 4, Lindsay Street, Kolkata – 700 087], which according to the appellant, obstructed the hoarding put up by the appellant. Thus, the appellant/plaintiff filed C.S. No.549/1999 on around 30.09.1999 (hereinafter referred to as the “suit”) for declaration and permanent injunction before the Calcutta High Court (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) against the respondent/defendant. The position of the parties was that the appellant was a tenant on the ground floor of the building in question, whereas the respondent was a tenant on the first floor.
3. Summons in the suit was served on the respondent, which entered appearance on 03.02.2000. On 29.02.2000, an interim order of restraint was passed by the High Court, in terms of prayer (a) made in application G.A. No.4229/1999 filed by the petitioner in the suit.
4. It appears that the official website of the High Court showed the status of the suit as having been ‘disposed of’ on 01.03.2000. However, on 11.12.2001, the appellant filed Contempt Case No.333/2001 alleging violation of the interim order dated 29.02.2000. Later, on 25.01.2010, by way of a Deed of Conveyance, the original owners of the premises sold the same to M/s TUG Developers Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “TUG Developers”), which is a subsidiary of the respondent.
5. On 08.09.2015, TUG Developers issued a notice of eviction to the appellant on the grounds of sub letting and non-payment of rent and for terminating the tenancy/lease with effect from October, 2015. On 17.01.2017, the suit was listed suddenly before the High Court, which directed the Registrar (Listing) to submit a report on the status of the suit as the learned Single Judge noticed that the website reflected the status of the suit as being disposed of. On 25.01.2017, the Registrar (Listing) submitted his report stating that the case appeared to have been disposed of on 01.03.2000 and that the matter was listed as ‘to be mentioned’ on 17.01.2017 in terms of the instructions received from the High Court. On 30.01.2017, the Court directed the suit to be listed in February, 2017. This led to the respondent filing application G.A. No.693/20172[For clarity, G.A. No.693/2017 was later re-numbered as G.A. No.4/2017. In the context of the suit, both refer to one and the same application.] in the suit, seeking extension of time to file Written Statement, along with a copy thereof.
6. Ejectment Suit No.34/2018 was filed by TUG Developers seeking ejectment of the appellant from the premises.
7. The High Court on 21.04.2023 asked for a report from its Registry as to how the suit was shown as disposed of to which the Registrar (Original Side) responded by submitting a report on 11.05.2023 stating that there were no details of any orders available in the file prior to 17.01.2017. On 12.06.2023, the learned Single Judge dismissed G.A. No.693/2017. Contempt Case No.331/2001 was also disposed of on 13.06.2023 on a statement by the appellant that the same had become infructuous.
8. Aggrieved by the learned Single Judge’s order dated 12.06.2023 supra, the respondent preferred A.P.O. No.147/2023 before the Division Bench of the High Court, which, by judgment dated 22.03.2024 allowed the appeal. This judgment of the Division Bench is assailed in the instant appeal.
9. By the Impugned Judgment dated 22.03.2024, the Division Bench found sufficient cause on the ground of the confusion relating to pendency of the suit as also the principle that matter is best adjudged on merits rather than being thrown out on technicalities and the aim of the Court to do substantial justice between the parties rather than disposing of the matter on technical grounds unless a party is guilty of gross negligence
