Procedural non-compliance should not lead to automatic dismissal unless specifically mandated by statute.

Bipin Ch ander Negi, Judge (oral )

The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 13.12.2024, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge-II, Dehra, iDistrict Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order and the documents appended along-with present petition.

3. The impugned order dated 13.12.2024 is reproduced here-in-

below for a ready reference:-

“Affidavit in the form of declaration regarding the signature on verification of the plaint and plaint file filed.

Heard. The content of the plaint itself verification and affidavit are separate. The plaint in original and plaint in duplicate is neither signed by plaintiff nor his counsel. Only the verification part is signed at two places by the plaintiff. In such

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

circumstances the contents of the plaint cannot be read for initiating the legal proceedings against defendants. The court .

is not satisfied with such pleadings. Such type of plaint cannot be entertained and the same is rejected in accordance in provision of order 7 rule 11 of CPC. Since the original documents has been annexed with the plaint, the same after retaining certified copy be also return against receipt. The needful is to be done today itself. Court fee be refunded as per rules. The file after due completion be consign to record room.”

4. It is well settled posittion of law that non compliance of any procedural requirement relating to pleadings should not entail automatic dismissal or rejection unless the relevant statute/rule so mandates. In this respect, reference can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uday Shankar Triyar vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and another, 2006(1) SCC 75. The relevant extract is being reproduced here-in-below:-

“17. Non-compliance with any procedural requirement relating to a pleading, memorandum of appeal or application or petition for relief should not entail automatic dismissal or rejection, unless the relevant statute or rule so mandates. Procedural defects and H irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure, a hand-maiden to justice, should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use. The well recognized exceptions to this principle are :-

i) where the Statute prescribing the procedure, also prescribes specifically the consequence of non-compliance.

ii) where the procedural defect is not rectified, even after it is pointed out and due opportunity is given for rectifying it;

iii) where the non-compliance or violation is proved to be deliberate or mischievous;

iv) where the rectification of defect would affect the case on merits or will affect the jurisdiction of the court.

v) in case of Memorandum of Appeal, there is complete absence of authority and the appeal is presented without the knowledge, .

consent and authority of the appellant.” P

5. The procedural non-compliance being complained of in the case at hand is not of a nature to entail automatic dismissal or rejection. The rejection, in the case at hand, cannot be sustained by any statutory provision. In view of the said factual matrix and thoe position of law laid down by the Apex Court, present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 13.12.2024, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge-II, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh is quashed andu set aside. The trial Court is directed to proceed further with the proceedings as had been filed initially.

6. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court on

19.09.2025.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.