Hon'ble Supreme Court stressed the importance of resolving cases on their merits rather than dismissing them on procedural technicalities, allowed Written Statement filed after long time

-

Supreme Court Upholds Discretion of Calcutta High Court Division Bench in Allowing Late Filing of Written Statement by Respondent

Summary:

In the case of PIC Departmentals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sreeleathers Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal challenging the judgment of the Calcutta High Court's Division Bench, which had allowed the respondent, Sreeleathers Pvt. Ltd., to file a written statement in a suit that had been pending since 1999. The controversy arose when the respondent's signboard allegedly obstructed a hoarding put up by the appellant, leading to a long-standing legal battle.

The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Division Bench of the High Court was correct in permitting the late filing of the written statement, despite procedural rules and an earlier judgment from the High Court disallowing such delays. The Court, however, emphasized that procedural rules should not overshadow substantive justice. Given the confusion caused by the High Court's own records, which erroneously marked the suit as disposed of in 2000, the Supreme Court found the Division Bench's decision to allow the late filing justified.

The Supreme Court stressed the importance of resolving cases on their merits rather than dismissing them on procedural technicalities, particularly when the fault lay partly with the Court's administrative errors. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the High Court was urged to expedite the resolution of the suit, given its prolonged history.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs & Ors on 25 March, 2008 Judgment Detailed Summary

-
Image
Case Overview: Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: R. V. Raveendran, P. Sathasivam Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 6191 of 2001 Parties: Petitioner: Anathula Sudhakar (Defendant in the original suit) Respondent: P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) represented by legal representatives Background: The suit was originally filed by Puli Chandra Reddy and Puli Buchi Reddy, who claimed ownership of two sites (110 sq. yards and 187 sq. yards) in Matwada, Warangal town. They alleged that the defendant interfered with their possession when they began construction on the sites in 1978, leading them to file a suit for a permanent injunction. The defendant, Anathula Sudhakar, claimed that he had purchased the entire suit property (300 sq. yards) from K.V. Damodar Rao (brother of the plaintiffs' vendor, Rukminibai) under a registered sale deed in 1977 and that the property was mutated in his name in municipal records. Trial Court and Lower Courts: Trial Court: The suit was decreed in favor of...
Read more

Before Deciding on Interim, Ensure that there is atleast a preliminary satisfaction regarding the Suit Maintainbility: HSC

-
Image
Summary of Judgment: Asma Lateef & Anr. vs. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. Citation: 2024 INSC 36 Civil Appeal No. 9695 of 2013 Court: Supreme Court of India Judges: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Aravind Kumar Legal Issues: Whether the order dated 5th August 1991, decreeing the suit against Samiullah under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, suffered from a jurisdictional error so grave that the decree drawn up subsequently is incapable of execution. Whether the objections under Section 47 of the CPC by the subsequent purchasers were maintainable. Background: The appellants claimed that their great-grandmother orally gifted them a certain property on 16th August 1988, which was later recorded in a memorandum before the tehsildar. The appellants filed a suit for a permanent injunction against Asad Ullah Kazmi (defendant no. 1), his son Samiullah (defendant no. 2), and a caretaker (defendant no. 3), restraining them from interfering with their possession of...
Read more