IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ritu Tagore, J.
Santosh – Appellant
Versus
Sonia – Respondent
CR No. 6704 of 2023
Decided On : 12-02-2024
Order 41 Rule 1 CPC - Appeal - 41(1) - Summary: The court discussed the provisions of Order 41 Rule 1 CPC, which requires every appeal to be accompanied by a copy of the judgment. The court emphasized the discretionary power of the court to condone procedural defects in appeals and highlighted that the interest of justice should not be constrained by hyper-technical interpretation of the requirement for a certified copy of the appealed judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed an appeal against a judgment and decree, but the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the requirement to file a certified copy of the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dismissal of the appeal based solely on technicalities was harsh and impacted the petitioners' statutory right to appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should have dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the requirement to file a certified copy of the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the discretionary power of the court to condone procedural defects in appeals and highlighted that the interest of justice should not be constrained by hyper-technical interpretation of the requirement for a certified copy of the appealed judgment.
Final Decision: The order dismissing the appeal was set aside, and the learned Appellate Court was directed to restore the appeal at its original number after the petitioners submit the certified copy of the judgment within 15 days.
Judgment
Mrs. Ritu Tagore, J.
This revision is directed against the order dated 04.10.2023 (Annexure P-4) in which learned ADJ, Gurugram dismissed the petitioners’ application for non-filing of certified copy of the impugned judgment dated 18.07.2023 along with the memorandum of appeal, by the invoking the provisions of Order 41 Rule 1 CPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a photocopy of the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.08.2023, downloaded from the website of the District Court, Gurugram, was appended alongwith the memorandum of the appeal. The certified copy of the decree sheet was also filed. An application seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of judgment was also submitted as same was not available despite having been applied for.
3. The learned counsel submits that dismissal of the first appeal is harsh upon the petitioners, adversely impacting their statutory right to appeal on technical grounds. It is contended that the Court should not have dismissed the appeal based solely on technicalities. The learned counsel states that he is ready with the certified copy of the appeal and would submit the same before the learned Appellate Court. A prayer is made to allow the revision. In support of his argument referred to judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CR No.2160 of 1994 titled ‘Maharshi Dayanand University Vs. Rajan Sahuja decided on 31.10.1995.
4. Heard.
5. Perusal of the paper book would show that the petitioners had filed an appeal (Annexure P-1) against judgment and decree dated 08.07.2023 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram whereby the suit of the plaintiff (respondents before this Court) was decreed. Annexure P-2, the case status report downloaded from the portal of District and Sessions Court, Gurugram and the photocopy of the order dated 31.08.2023 shows that the appeal was filed on that date. The learned ASJ, Gurugram passed the following order:-
“Civil Appeal received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered. Alongwith appeal, an application for stay of judgment order and decree with affidavit and an application for condonation of delay, is also filed. Moreover as per the Order 41 Rule 1 CPC, the appeal has to be preferred with a copy of judgment. But admittedly the present appeal does not have copy of judgment assailed herein nor exemption application for the same has been moved. Therefore, it is a technical error in the appeal but instead of dismissing the appeal it would be appropriate to give directions to the appellant to either move application for exemption for filing certified copy of documents within 3 days or file a certified copy of judgment failing which the appeal shall be dismissed. Now the case is adjourned for 05.09.2023 for the needful”
6. Annexure P-3 photocopy of the order dated 02.09.2023 reveals that an application was filed to submit the certified copy of the decree sheet. The order also indicates that the Court noted that an application for exemption from filing the certified copy of the documents was already attached with the appeal. Permission was granted to place the certified copy of decree sheet on record, and appeal was adjourned for 04.10.2023 for filing certified copy of the judgment. However, on 04.10.2023, the Court dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with Order 41 Rule 1 CPC despite having been granted an extension for filing the certified copy of judgment.
7. The perusal of the paper book shows that the petitioners had submitted an application before the learned appellate Court seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of the judgment by pleading that they could not append the certified copy of the judgment as it was not yet available, and an application for obtaining the certified copy of judgment has already been applied for on 22.08.2023 vide nakal No.9393, and an uncertified copy of judgment is being attached with the appeal.
8. Order 41 Rule 1 provides as under:-
“Form of appeal- What to
The court emphasized the discretionary power of the court to condone procedural defects in appeals and highlighted that the interest of justice should not be constrained by hyper-technical interpreta....
Point of Law : Once an appeal is duly entertained without the production of a certified copy of the Decree sheet with it and neither the memorandum of appeal was rejected nor returned, as provided un....
Procedural defects in filing appeals should not prevent justice if rectified timely; the High Court's interference under Article 227 is limited to gross failures of justice.
The court has the authority to direct the learned Trial Court to expedite the proceedings and dispose of pending applications within specified timelines.
The limitation for filing an appeal begins upon the pronouncement of the order and not its publication, making delays uncondonable if not filed timely.
The High Court may dispose of an original petition by directing the lower appellate court to decide pending interlocutory applications in accordance with the law while the main appeal is active, rath....
The court emphasized that a satisfactory explanation for delay in filing an appeal is essential, particularly when substantial time has elapsed since the judgment.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.