Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1173 (MAD)

Petitioner v. Respondent

2012-03-02

M.VENUGOPAL

body2012
Judgment :- M.VENUGOPAL, J., 1. The Petitioner/Respondent has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition for issuance of an order by this Court to seta side the Judgment and Decree dated 10.02.2004 passed in S.A.No.471 of 1993. 2. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner/Respondent submits that the Petitioner/Respondent has filed the S.A.No.471 of 1993 against the dismissal of the Suit for declaration of her title to the suit property and for recovery of possession. 3. According to the Petitioner, there has been an enormous delay in representing the papers in the Second Appeal and infact, the Petitioner has entered appearance through Counsel even at the stage of delay in representation in C.M.P.No.7031 of 1990 and the same has since been condoned by this Court on 27.08.1992, subsequently, the Second Appeal has been admitted by this Court. 4. Furthermore, on behalf of the Petitioner, the Learned Counsel has given a letter to the Office of the Registry of this Court on 13.12.1993 to enter the name of the Learned Counsel in the Second Appeal register/records. Obviously, the Learned Counsel's name (appearing for the Petitioner) has not been entered in the concerned register/record of the Second Appeal by the Office of the Registry. 5. Earlier, the Petitioner has filed C.M.P.No.3264 of 2007 praying for issuance of an order by this Court to condone the delay of 1308 days in seeking to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 10.02.2004 passed in S.A.No.471 of 1993. The said C.M.P.No.3264 of 2007 has been allowed by this Court on 21.02.2012. 6. While allowing the C.M.P.No.3264 of 2007, this Court has inter alia observed that "in the instant case on hand, by taking note of the ground realities and also the indisputable fact that the letter dated 13.12.1993 of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/1st Defendant to the Office of the Registry to enter his name on behalf of the Petitioner at the S.R. stage of C.M.P. and later, the same has not been recorded or entered into the concerned register of the Second Appeal by the office of the Registry, which has caused miscarriage of justice etc., also, by adopting a pragmatic, common sense, meaningful, purposeful and avoiding pedantic approach to promote substantial cause of justice, consequently, allowed the petition, in the interest of justice, leaving the parties to bear their own costs." 7. It is a well settled principle of law that a Court of law is supposed to deliver substantial justice to the parties, over riding technicalities. By allowing the Petitioner/1st Defendant to take part in the proceedings after condoning the delay, etc., no serious prejudice or harm will be caused to the other side. Also, by allowing the petition filed by the Petitioner/1st Defendant, there is a possibility for a Court of Law to decide the main case on merits, after providing due opportunities to both sides. Per contra, if the petition is dismissed at the nascent stage, then, the doors of justice will be shut to the Petitioner/1st Defendant and there is every likelihood of even a meritorious case being thrown out. Apart from that, the other side cannot also claim a vested right in injustice being done/caused owing to an unintentional delay. It cannot be gainsaid that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds, but, because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 8. In as much as this Court has already allowed the C.M.P.No.3264 of 2007 by passing a very detailed and elaborated order as a logical corollary, this Court, also on equitable ground, allows the present C.M.P.No.224 of 2012, in furtherance of substantial cause of justice, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.