DWARIKA PRASAD (D) THR. LRs. VERSUS PRITHVI RAJ SINGH (Supreme Court)

It is well settled that Courts should not shut out cases on mere technicalities but rather afford opportunity to both sides and thrash out the matter on merits. Further, we cannot let the party suffer due to negligent or fault committed by their counsel. This principle has been enunciated by the Supreme court in the case of Rafiq v. Munshilal (1981) 2 SCC 788, quoted as follows:

“3. The disturbing feature of the case is that under our present adversary legal system where the parties generally appear through their advocates, the obligation of the parties is to select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees demanded by him and then trust the learned Advocate to do the rest of the things. The party may be a villager or may belong to a rural area and may have no knowledge of the court’s procedure. After engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, the personal appearance of the party is not only not required but hardly useful. Therefore, the party having done everything in his power to effectively participate in the proceedings can rest assured that he has neither to go to the High Court to inquire as to what is happening in the High Court with regard to his appeal nor is he to act as a watchdog of the advocate that the latter appears in the matter when it is listed. It is no part of his job. Mr A.K. Sanghi stated that a practice has grown up in the High Court of Allahabad amongst the lawyers that they remain absent when they do not like a particular Bench. Maybe, we do not know, he is better informed in this matter. Ignorance in this behalf is our bliss. Even if we do not put our seal of imprimatur on the alleged practice by dismissing this matter which may discourage such a tendency, would it not bring justice delivery system into disrepute. What is the fault of the party who having done everything in his power expected of him would suffer because of the default of his advocate. If we reject this appeal, as Mr A.K. Sanghi invited us to do, the only one who would suffer would not be the lawyer who did not appear but the party whose interest he represented. The problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent. The answer obviously is in the negative. Maybe that the learned Advocate absented himself deliberately or intentionally. We have no material for ascertaining that aspect of the matter. We say nothing more on that aspect of the matter. However, we cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted.” (Bhagmal and Ors Vs. Kunwar Lal and Others 2010 (12) SCC 159 referred)

In Bhagmal and Ors Vs. Kunwar Lal and Others 2010 (12) SCC 159 the Supreme Court held as follows;

“12. It is to be seen here that the question of delay was completely interlinked with the merits of the matter. The appellant-defendants had clearly pleaded that they did not earlier come to the court on account of the fact that they did not know about the order passed by the court proceeding ex parte and also the ex parte decree which was passed. It was further clearly pleaded that they came to know about the decree when they were served with the execution notice. This was nothing, but a justification made by the appellantdefendants for making Order 9 Rule 13 application at the time when it was actually made. This was also a valid explanation of the delay. The question of filing Order 9 Rule 13 application was, in our opinion, rightly considered by the appellate court on merits and the appellate court was absolutely right in coming to the conclusion that the appellant/defendants were fully justified in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC at the time when they actually filed it and the delay in filing the application was also fully explained on account of the fact that they never knew about the decree and the orders starting the ex parte proceedings against them. If this was so, the Court had actually considered the reasons for the delay also. Under such circumstances, the High Court should not have taken the hypertechnical view that no separate application was filed under Section 5.

13. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC itself had all the ingredients of the application for condonation of delay in making that application. Procedure is after all handmaid of justice.”

From the above cases, it is clear that there was no need to file a separate application for condonation of delay in the present case as well. The High Court erred in taking a hyper technical view and concluding that there was violation of mandatory provision of law. Endorsing such a view would effectively mean ignoring the purpose of judicial procedure. The procedure cannot stand in the way of achieving just and fair outcome. In the present case, the Appellant acted bona fide and diligently. His conduct does not violate any rule of law