Procedural errors should not unjustly deny parties their right to appeal when sufficient cause is shown, emphasizing the importance of justice over strict adherence to procedural timelines.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 24.04.2024, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Hazaribag, in connection with Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 03 of 2018 arising out of Title Appeal No. 31 of 2013, whereby the petition filed under Order-XLI, Rule-19 read with Section 151 of the CPC has been allowed by the learned court and the re-admission of Title Appeal No. 31 of 2013 was allowed.

3. Mr. Pratik Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the said appeal was dismissed for default. He submits that on 12.12.2017, attendance was made before the learned court and the said appeal was dismissed on 19.12.2017, as no step was taken on behalf of the opposite parties. He further submits that the said petition was filed on wrong facts and the learned court has allowed the same and re-admitted the appeal and the same has occurred due to the misleading facts, as stated by the opposite parties in the said appeal. He submits that it has been stated in the petition that the date for taking steps for publication was on 12.12.2017, but the junior counsel inadvertently taken the date as 12.02.2018 and forwarded the date in the diary on 12.02.2018 instead of 12.12.2017, as such the lawyer for the appellants could not know the dates about 12.12.2017, 14.12.2017 and 19.12.2017 and due to that mistake he could not take steps, as a result of which, the said Title Appeal was dismissed on 19.12.2017 and that statement is recorded in para-8 of the petition and the learned court considering that has been pleased to re-admit the said title appeal. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside.

4. Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 submits that it has occurred inadvertently and the correct date was not posted in the diary, as such no suppression was made. He submits that the opposite parties have appeared on 14.12.2017, however, on 19.12.2017, no step was taken, as such, the said appeal was dismissed.

5. The court finds that the learned court has awarded the cost of Rs. 2500/- and thereafter restored the said appeal. Further the stand taken by the opposite parties cannot be ruled out, as the wrong posting date was mentioned in the diary. As such, sufficient cause is made out and considering all these facts, the learned court has restored the said appeal.

6. In view of the above, no case of interference is made out, as such, this petition is dismissed.

7. It is made clear that the title appeal shall be decided on its own merits, without being prejudiced by this order.