Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil K. Narendran & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harisankar V. Menon
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Naik Santhosh Kumar – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.27434 of 2024 (Filing No.) & connected cases
Decided on 07-08-2024
PROCEDURAL DEFECTS - Writ Appeals and Petitions - Chapter III of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971; Rule 35; Rule 50; Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 - The court discussed the procedural requirements for legibility and clarity of documents submitted in Writ Appeals and Petitions, emphasizing the necessity for documents to be typewritten or printed legibly as per Rule 35. It highlighted the implications of illegible documents under Rule 50 and the Electronic Filing Rules, which mandate that all pleadings must be clear and readable. The court's decision was influenced by the need to ensure that all submitted documents are accessible for proper adjudication.
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Appeals were filed challenging the common judgment of a Single Judge regarding the legibility of documents submitted in Writ Petitions. The Registry noted defects in the documents, which were either not legible due to dark shades or small font sizes, leading to procedural complications in the appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defects noted by the Registry regarding the legibility of documents were valid and required rectification. It acknowledged the challenges faced by litigants and advocates due to the illegibility of government orders and communications, and emphasized the importance of clear documentation for effective judicial proceedings.
Issues: The primary issues included the legibility of documents submitted with Writ Appeals and Petitions, the procedural requirements for filing such documents, and the implications of illegible documents on the adjudication process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that all documents submitted in Writ Appeals and Petitions must be legible and clear, as per the rules governing court procedures. It ruled that if a document is not legible, a typed copy must be provided, or an undertaking must be given that the illegible portion is not necessary for the case's adjudication.
Final Decision: The court directed that all documents submitted must meet the legibility requirements and outlined procedures for rectifying defects in document submissions. It also proposed improvements in the electronic filing system to prevent similar issues in the future.
ORDER
Anil K. Narendran, J.
Unnumbered W.A.No……………..of 2024(Filing No.1010/2024 and
Unnumbered W.A.No……………...of 2024 (Filing No.999/2024)
These Writ Appeals are filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C).Nos.36325 of 2022 and 35649 of 2022, challenging the common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13.03.2024 in those Writ Petitions. Registry noted certain defects and the unnumbered Writ Appeals are listed before this Bench.
1.1. In the Writ Appeal with Filing No.999/2024, arising out of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.36325 of 2022, Registry noted that the exhibits are not legible in the copy of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, produced along with the memorandum of Writ Appeal. The appellant re-presented the Writ Appeal after removing, to the extent possible, dark shades on Exts.R1(a) to R1(c). On re-presentation, Registry noted that there are dark shades on the exhibits. It contains a small font, which is not legible.
1.2. In the Writ Appeal with Filing No.1010/2024, arising out of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.35649 of 2022, Registry noted that Exts.R1(a), R1(e) and R1(f) are not legible and readable in the copy of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, produced along with the memorandum of Writ Appeal. The appellant re-presented the Writ Appeal stating that since the documents are produced by respondents 1 and 2, along with the counter affidavit filed by them in the Writ Petition, no clear and legible copies of those documents are available with the appellant.
Unnumbered W.A.No…………..of 2024 (Filing No.1041/2024)
2. This Writ Appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 04.06.2024 in W.P.(C) No.25489 of 2020. Registry noted defects in the light of the judgment of a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.22708 of 2022, that pages 114 and 122 are not legible. The learned counsel for the appellant re-submitted the memorandum of Writ Appeal removing pages 114 and 122, which are not legible, with an endorsement that Exts.R3(d) and R3(i) produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent are not produced in the said memorandum since it is not readable even when the copy of the counter affidavit filed in the Writ Petition was served on the appellant and the appellant is not relying on those two documents for the adjudication of the Writ Appeal.
2.1. By the order dated 23.07.2024 of the Division Bench headed by the Honourable the Acting Chief Justice, this matter is directed to be listed before this Bench, which has the roster to hear JPP (Judicial Practice and Procedure) and to decide on the procedure to be followed by Registry regarding the defects noted in physical copies produced before the Court.
Unnumbered W.P.(C) No……………of 2024 (Filing No.27434/2024)
3. This Writ Petition is one filed by respondents 1 to 4 in O.A.No.120 of 2020 on the file of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi, challenging Ext.P3 order of the Tribunal dated 05.04.2023, whereby that original application stands allowed in terms of the directions contained paragraph 16 of that order. Registry noted defects and the unnumbered Writ Petition is listed before this Bench.
3.1. One of the defects noted by Registry is that pages 29 to 43 of the memorandum of the Writ Petition, i.e., Annexure A1 copy of RMP proceedings and Annexure A2 copy of the letter dated 08.07.2019 are not legible. Therefore, the dark shade has to be removed, or else a typed copy of the same has to be produced. The learned Central Government Counsel answered that a copy of the memorandum of the original application filed by the applicant before the Tribunal is produced along with the memorandum of the Writ Petition. The Annexures consist of a large number of pages and typing everything is practically impossible.
4. On 29.07.2024, when these matters came up for consideration, this Court noticed that most of the defects noted by Registry in the Writ Petitions and Original Petitions [O.P.((KAT) and O.P.(CAT)] are that the copy of the Gov
The court reinforced the principle that legibility and clarity of documents are essential for the proper functioning of judicial processes, mandating compliance with established procedural rules to e....
The court mandated that all documents in writ petitions and appeals must be legible, with procedures established for handling illegible submissions to ensure fair adjudication.
Procedural law must facilitate justice, not obstruct it, emphasizing the importance of substantive justice over technicalities.
Procedural law must facilitate justice, allowing flexibility in document production to avoid hindrances in the administration of justice.
The court established that compliance with procedural rules, specifically Rule 132 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, is mandatory for third parties seeking certified copies of court documents....
The repeated failure to avail opportunities granted by the court to lead evidence can amount to an abuse of process of law and delay the final adjudication of a suit.
Procedural delays in filing should not bar adjudication on merits when substantive filings are made within prescribed timelines, reaffirming fairness in litigation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
