Back
2024 Supreme(SC) 736
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 Appellant : 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: 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.
The court affirmed that procedural technicalities should yield to substantive justice, allowing late filings when justified by the circumstances.
Headnote:
Discretion - Written Statement - Chapter XXXVIII Rule 46, High Court Rules - The court emphasized the importance of substantive justice over procedural technicalities, allowing the respondent's Written Statement due to confusion regarding the suit's status, thus exercising discretion judiciously.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit for injunction against the respondent for obstructing a signboard. The respondent failed to file a Written Statement in time, leading to a series of legal proceedings and confusion regarding the suit's status.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's delay in filing the Written Statement was not due to gross negligence but rather confusion over the suit's status, justifying the Division Bench's decision to allow the Written Statement.
Issues: Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in allowing the respondent to file a Written Statement after a significant delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that procedural rules should not prevent substantive justice and that discretion in allowing late filings must be exercised based on the specific circumstances of each case.
Result: The appeal is 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 negligenc
