Procedural technicalities should not obstruct substantial justice when no serious prejudice is caused to the other party.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT th ON THE 19 OF AUGUST, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 2960 of 2025 RAJESH BANETHIYA THROUGH HIS LEGAL HIERS (DEAD)

SONIYA BANETHIYA Versus SURESH YADAV AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ambuj Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

"a. The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or other writ, order or direction, for quashing of the impugned order dated 28th April, 2025 passed by Third Additional Judge, Motor Vehicle Act, Itarsi, District Narmadapuram, Madhya Pradesh (Annexure P/3) by setting it aside and further may allow the petitioner to file the written statement, in the interest of justice.

b. Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in the interest of justice."

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being legal representative has marked her presence on 25.03.2025. Thereafter, on 16.04.2025, last opportunity was granted to non-applicant No. 2, owner of the vehicle, to file Vakalatnama till 22.04.2025. On 22.04.2025, the non-applicant No. 2 has been declared ex-parte and the petitioner has been given last chance to submit written statement on 28.04.2025 and on Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA

28.04.2025, the right to file written statement of the petitioner has been closed.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Tribunal has taken a hyper-technical approach to close the petitioner's right to file written statement in a hurried manner. The petitioner has sought mercy of this Court to grant one opportunity to file the written statement in the matter

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sugandhi (Dead) thr. LRs v.

P. Rajkumar - (2020) 10 SCC 706 has held as under :

“9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under sub-rule (3).”

6. It is evident from the impugned order-sheets that the petitioner has marked her presence on 25.03.2025 and on 28.04.2025 the right to submit written has been closed, approximately after 33-34 days of the appearance. It seems that the approach of the court below is unreasonable. However, considering the prayer of the petitioner in a sympathetic manner, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner deserves one chance to file the written statement at the cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid to the respondents.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAGHVENDRA

7. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to submit written statement within a period of 15 days from today. In case written statement of the petitioner is not filed within 15 days, the impugned order shall remain in operation.