Back
2015 Supreme(Cal) 304
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.
Arun Rai @ Arun Kumar Rai @ Arun Kumar Subba – Petitioner
Versus
Deoraj Dewan – Opposite Party
C.O. No. 4097 of 2012
Decided On : 21.7.2015
For the Petitioner:Mr. Amitava Ghosh, Mr. Sourav Chatterjee and Mr. Navojit Mukherjee, Advocates.
For the Opposite Party:Mrs. Usha Maity and Ms. Tina Mitra, Advocate.
A court has the inherent power to rectify an error committed at an earlier stage of the proceedings, and technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way of doing complete justice between the parties.
Headnote:
WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1997 - SECTION 7(I) AND 7(II) - LEAVE TO DEPOSIT RENT - DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE AS TO OWNERSHIP - COURT'S INHERENT POWER TO RECTIFY ERROR - APPLICABILITY OF RULES OF PROCEDURE - FINALITY OF JUDGMENTS - INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed applications under Sections 7(i) and 7(ii) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (the Act) for leave to deposit rent and determination of the dispute as to the ownership of the premises. The initial applications were dismissed for not mentioning the specific provisions of the Act. The trial court, upon realizing the error, corrected it by a subsequent order. The appellate court set aside the trial court's order, holding that the trial court could not allow the applications after initially dismissing them. The petitioner challenged this decision in the instant revisional application.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court acted properly in rectifying the error in its initial order. The court emphasized that technicalities should not prevent the court from doing complete justice between the parties and that procedure should be subservient to justice. The court further held that the appellate court erred in interfering with the trial court's order, as the interest of justice required the trial court to pass the subsequent order.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in rectifying the error in its initial order dismissing the petitioner's applications. 2. Whether the appellate court erred in interfering with the trial court's subsequent order.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A court has the inherent power to rectify an error committed at an earlier stage of the proceedings. 2. Technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way of doing complete justice between the parties. 3. Procedure is a handmaid of justice and must always be subservient to justice. 4. A court should not hesitate to pass an order that it had earlier declined to pass if the interest of justice so warrants. 5. The finality of a judgment is a desirable concept but should not be carried to a degree of fault.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revisional application, set aside the appellate court's order, and restored the trial court's order allowing the petitioner's applications under Sections 7(i) and 7(ii) of the Act. The court also directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously within one year.
ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.
1. In this revisional application, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 26.10.2012 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 12 of 2008 whereby the learned District Judge, Darjeeling set aside the order dated 16.9.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurseong dismissing the application of the opposite party/plaintiff under Section 7(iii) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and allowing the petitioners applications under Section 7(i) and Section 7(ii) of the said Act.
2. The learned first appellate court set aside the order permitting the defendant to deposit the rent and allowed the plaintiffs application for striking out of defence against delivery of possession.
3. On or about 9th June 2006, the opposite party filed O.C Suit No. 1 of 2006 in the court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Kurseong for recovery of vacant position of the suit premises and mense profits. On or about 14.8.2006, the petitioner/defendant filed an application essentially under Section 7(i) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (in short the said Act) for leave to deposit rent in court. However in the petition, it was not mentioned that the same was being filed under Section 7(i) of the said Act. The petitioner also filed an application on the same date i.e. 14.8.2006 essentially under Section 7(ii) of the said Act for determining the dispute as to the ownership of the said premises. However it was not mentioned in the said petition that the same was being filed under Section 7(ii) of the said Act.
4. By an order dated 20.11.2006 the learned first court dismissed the defendants said applications inter alia on the ground that it was not mentioned in the said applications under which provision of law the same were filed. The defendant filed an application for amendment of the said two petitions. The amendment application was dismissed by an order dated 16.9.2008. However, the learned first Court recorded that the defendant’s application praying for leave to deposit current rent can be considered as a petition under section 7(i) of the said Act. By the same order the learned Jude recorded that there was no default on the part of the defendant in payment of rent and, accordingly, the learned Judge dismissed the plaintiff’s application under section 7(iii) of the said Act for striking out of the defence against delivery of possession of the suit premises.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 16.9.2008, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Darjeeling being Misc. Appeal No. 12 of 2008. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal setting aside the permission given to the defendant to deposit current rent and allowed the plaintiff’s application for striking out of defence against delivery of possession. The primary ground on which the Appellate Court allowed the appeal was that the learned first court having once rejected the defendant’s prayer for leave to deposit current rent could not subsequently allow such prayer.
6. Being aggrieved by the said Appellate Courts judgment and order dated 26.10.2012, the defendant is before this Court by way of the instant revisional application.
7. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Amitava Ghosh, learned counsel submitted that a court of law can always correct an error either on an application made by the aggrieved party or even suo motu upto the stage of execution to do complete justice between the parties. It was submitted that the learned first court had dismissed the defendant’s application for leave to deposit rent on an unsustainable ground that the application did not mention the provision of law under which the same was filed and this error of law was corrected by the learned first court by a subsequent order dated 16.9.2008. He then submitted that non-mentioning of provisions of law under which an application is made, does not defeat the application. He further submitted that the West Bengal Premises Tenancy
