Court emphasized that substantial justice prevails over technical grounds, allowing for readmission of an appeal dismissed for the absent appearance of counsel.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This Civil Misc. Application under Order41, Rule 19 of the CPC, 1908 has been filed by the petitioners (those were the appellants in the Second Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999) against the Opposite Parties (those were the respondents in the Second Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999) praying for readmission of the S.A. No.85 of 1999 which was dismissed on dated 10.01.2024 for the default of the appellants (petitioners).

2. The factual backgrounds of this CMAPL under Order 41, Rule 19 of the CPC, 1908, which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, the date of hearing of the 2^nd Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999 was fixed to 10.01.2024, but due to non- reflection of the name of the newly engaged counsel in the cause list i.e. Mr. N.K. Sahu & Associates, he (learned counsel Mr. N.K. Sahu) was not presented before the Court on dated 10.01.2024, for which, due to non-appearance of the appellants or their learned counsel on dated 10.01.2024, the 2^nd Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999 was dismissed on that day i.e. on 10.01.2024 for non-prosecution from the side of the appellants.

Thereafter, on dated 19.01.2024, the appellants of the 2^nd Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999 being the petitioners filed this CMAPL under Order 41, Rule 19 of the CPC, 1908 for readmission of that 2^nd Appeal after setting aside its dismissal order dated 10.01.2024 stating the aforesaid grounds for hearing of the same on merit or else they (petitioners) shall be prejudiced seriously and sustain irreparable loss, because, the petitioners (Appellants in the 2^nd Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999) are interested for hearing of that 2^nd Appeal on merit.

In spite of sufficiency of notices against the Opp. Parties (those were the respondents in the 2^nd Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999) none appeared for the hearing of the CMAPL. For which, this CMAPL was heard only from the side of the petitioners.

3. It appears from the record that, soon after the dismissal of the 2nd Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999 for the default of the petitioners i.e. for non-prosecution from the side of the petitioners (appellants in the 2^nd Appeal vide S.A. No.85 of 1999), they (petitioners) filed this CMAPL for readmission of that 2^nd Appeal after setting aside its dismissal order stating that, they (petitioners) are interested for hearing of that 2nd Appeal on merit and due to non-mentioning of the names of the newly engaged learned counsels i.e. Mr. N.K. Sahu and his Associates in the cause list, their learned counsel Mr. N.K. Sahu could not remain present on dated 10.01.2024 in the Court.

4. It is the settled propositions of law that,

“when law of technicalities and the courses of substantial justice are pitted against each other, in that case, the courses of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Because, Courts should always be in favour of rendering substantial justice to the parties rather than disposing of the suits/appeals on technicalities, only for the reason that, the rights of the parties are to be adjudicated upon merits of the controversies. A party should not be thrown out merely on technicalities. Law Courts will lose their efficacy, if they will not possibly respond to the needs of the societies. Technicalities there might be many, but the justice oriented approach ought not to be thwarted on the basis of such technicalities, since technicalities cannot and ought not to outweigh the courses of justice.”

5. The purpose of enactment and object of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE is to enable both the parties to get the hearing of the case on merit.

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:

I. In a case between Sumitibai & Others Vs. Paras Finance Co. & Others reported