Citation : 2007 Local Law (CG) 150
The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside two lower court orders and restored a decades-old land dispute to the trial court, finding that a “pedantic and hyper-technical” approach by the courts below had caused a complete failure of justice.
Justice Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh delivered the ruling in a revision petition filed by Laxmi Prasad, one of the defendants, who challenged the rejection of his plea to set aside an ex parte judgment and decree passed in 1990. The case traces back to a land ownership dispute first initiated in 1967, involving over 7.5 acres of agricultural land in Bilaspur district.
The High Court observed that both the trial and appellate courts erred in refusing to condone a small delay in filing an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The refusal, the court said, was based on an excessively technical view that overlooked the genuine reasons behind the defendants’ absence during hearings.
Justice Deshmukh noted that when the defendants’ counsel pleaded “no instructions” during a hearing in March 1990, the court failed to issue notice to the defendants, who were unaware of the move. One of them, Shiv Shankar Prasad, was elderly and ailing, while his son Laxmi Prasad was serving as a Tahsildar outside Bilaspur at the time.
“The approach of the two courts below was not only contrary to law, but definitely perverse,” Justice Deshmukh stated. “The refusal to condone the delay and the rejection of the application by a slipshod order has resulted in failure of justice.”
The judgment emphasized that procedural rules should advance, not obstruct, substantial justice. Citing several Supreme Court precedents, including N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy and M.K. Prasad v. P. Arumugam, the High Court said that “sufficient cause” under the Limitation Act must be interpreted liberally when no negligence or bad faith is shown.
The court also dismissed an objection by the decree-holders that the appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(d) was not maintainable, clarifying that the rejection of an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC following the refusal to condone delay merges into a single appealable order.
In conclusion, the High Court set aside the ex parte decree and restored the Civil Suit No. 117-A/88 to the trial court’s file. The parties were directed to appear before the trial court on January 3, 2008, and the case is to proceed from the stage it was left in March 1990.
This decision highlights the judiciary’s responsibility to balance procedural discipline with fairness, ensuring litigants are not denied justice due to technicalities.
Case Title : Laxmi Prasad Dubey vs. Gulam Ali and Ors. (21.11.2007)
Relevant Section:
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 (CPC) – Order IX Rule 13; LIMITATION ACT, 1963 – Section 5
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order IX Rule 1; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order IX Rule 13; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order V Rule 20; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order XLIII Rule 1(d); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order XXI ; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order XXII Rule 4; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order XXII Rule 9; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 115; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 145; Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5
Cases Referred:
Tahil Ram Issardas Sadarangani and Ors. vs. Ramchand Issardas Sadarangani and Ors. AIR 1993 SC 1182; Ram Nath Sao and Ors. vs. Gobardhan Sao and Ors. [ 2002 ] 2 SCR 77; Devki bai vs. Balram Singh Gond and Ors. ; Malkiat Singh and Ors. vs. Joginder Singh and Ors. [ 1997 ]Supp 6 SCR 139
======
सीमा – विलंब की क्षमा (Condonation of Delay) –
अनुच्छेद 115, आदेश 9 नियम 13 और आदेश 43 नियम 1(d) सिविल प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1908 (CPC) तथा धारा 5, सीमितीकरण अधिनियम, 1963 (Limitation Act) के अंतर्गत।
वादियों द्वारा दायर वाद में प्रतिवादी के विरुद्ध एकतरफा डिक्री (ex parte decree) पारित की गई।
प्रतिवादी ने उक्त एकतरफा डिक्री को निरस्त करने हेतु आदेश 9 नियम 13 CPC के तहत आवेदन प्रस्तुत किया।
न्यायालय का निर्णय:
- निचली अदालत (ट्रायल कोर्ट) ने आवेदन अस्वीकार कर दिया।
- प्रतिवादी ने इस आदेश के विरुद्ध आदेश 43 नियम 1(d) CPC के तहत अपील दायर की, जिसे अपीलीय न्यायालय ने भी खारिज कर दिया।
- तत्पश्चात प्रतिवादी ने उक्त आदेशों को चुनौती देते हुए संशोधन याचिका (revision) दाखिल की।
उच्च न्यायालय का अवलोकन: मामले के तथ्यों से स्पष्ट हुआ कि आवेदन दायर करने में हुई देरी जानबूझकर नहीं थी।
प्रतिवादियों के अधिवक्ता ने सुनवाई के दौरान “नो इंस्ट्रक्शन” कहकर पैरवी छोड़ दी थी, जिसकी सूचना न तो अधिवक्ता ने दी और न ही अदालत ने प्रतिवादियों को दी।
इसलिए यह देरी प्रतिवादियों की लापरवाही या असावधानी का परिणाम नहीं मानी जा सकती।
निर्णय: निचली अदालतों को विलंब के प्रति उदार दृष्टिकोण अपनाते हुए आवेदन को स्वीकार करना चाहिए था।
अतः विलंब को क्षमा करते हुए आदेश 9 नियम 13 CPC के तहत दायर आवेदन स्वीकार किया जाता है।
मामले को उस स्थिति में पुनर्स्थापित किया जाता है, जब एकतरफा डिक्री पारित की गई थी।
परिणामतः संशोधन याचिका स्वीकार की जाती है।
