IMPORTANT POINT
Procedural law must facilitate justice, not obstruct it, emphasizing the importance of substantive justice over technicalities.

ORDER :

1. These writ appeals are filed by the 1st respondent in W.P. (C) Nos.18555 of 2024 and 20797 of 2023, invoking the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the common judgment dated 04.06.2024 of the learned Single Judge in those writ petitions and the connected matter, i.e. W.P. (C) No. 25628 of 2023. By the common judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed W.P. (C) Nos. 20797 of 2023 and 25628 of 2023 and closed W.P. (C) No. 18555 of 2024.

2. In the writ appeal with Filing No. 1276 of 2024, arising out of the judgment dated 04.06.2024 in W.P. (C) No. 18555 of 2024, the defect noted by the Registry is that a copy of the writ petition is not uploaded along with the writ appeal. On that defect noted by the Registry, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out Rule 159 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 and also paragraph 10 of the order of a Division Bench dated 07.08.2024 in unnumbered writ appeal with Filing No. 1010 of 2024 and connected matters. The learned counsel pointed out that, when the original records produced in the writ petition are available with the Registry, asking the appellant to produce copies of the same would be nothing but a waste and against the principles of conservation, which each citizen is duty bound under the Constitution of India. Since a copy of the writ petition is not uploaded along with the writ appeal, the Registry has posted the unnumbered writ appeal before the Bench.

3. In the writ appeal with Filing No. 1281 of 2024, arising out of the judgment dated 04.06.2024 in W.P. (C) No. 20797 of 2023, in addition to the defect of not uploading a copy of the writ petition, the Registry has noted that in the affidavit filed in support of the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 19 days in filing the writ appeal, the appellant has also sought for interim stay of operation of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. On the above defect noted by the Registry, the learned counsel for the appellant replied that when the affidavit contains the reason for the condonation of delay, stating the reasons to seek an interim stay of operation of the impugned judgment will not make the affidavit less effective or illegal. Regarding the non-production of a copy of the writ petition, the learned counsel has stated that calling for records of the writ petition is the function of the appellate court. Registry cannot insist that in all cases, the appellant shall produce copies of all pleadings along with the memorandum of appeal. Further, the pleadings of the writ petition will not include the daily orders issued, which would show how the final verdict is arrived at. By asking the appellant to produce the pleadings would disable the appellate court to find how the learned Single Judge has arrived at the conclusion. Rule 159 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 does not speak about the production of a copy of the writ petition, in a case in which the writ petition is decided after notice. Insisting production of writ petition along with interlocutory applications, while filing writ appeals in the online portal is against the Rules.

4. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant on the defects noted by the Registry.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would place reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Shamlal Murari, (1976) 1 SCC 719, wherein it was held that procedural law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice and another decision of the Apex Court in PIC Departmentals Pvt. Ltd. v. Sreeleathers Pvt. Ltd. order dated 30.07.2024 in SLP (C) No. 14902 of 2024, wherein it was held that ultimately the procedural technicalities have to give way to substantive justice. The procedure is only the ha