Practice and Procedure – Procedural laws vis-a-vis substantive laws – Construction of – Writ petition filed by appellants challenging order passed by State Minister for Revenue, dismissed by Single Judge – Intra court appeal filed by appellants – Division Bench permitted the appellants to withdraw the said appeal with liberty to file review petition before Single Judge – Review petition filed by appellants along with application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition – Review petition had some defects in its filing and the appellants were directed by Registry of High Court to cure the defects – Defects not cured by appellants – Review petition listed before Registrar (Judicial-1) for passing appropriate orders – Registrar granted four weeks’ time to the appellants to cure the defects also directing that failing to cure the defects will result in refusing the registration of the review petition, i.e., it will result in rejection of the review petition – Application filed by appellants filed for setting aside the said order, dismissed by Single Judge on ground of delay – On appeal, held: As far as possible, procedural laws should not be construed like a penal provision to punish the parities – Having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the case, High Court should have been liberal and condoned the delay and granted the appellants one more opportunity to cure the defects – Impugned order set aside – Delay in filing the application filed by appellants before High Court is condoned. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Procedural laws should not be construed like a penal provision to punish the parities as far as possible. Having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the case, the High Court should have been liberal in taking a view in the matter and accordingly should have condoned the delay and granted the appellants one more opportunity to cure the defects. The interest of justice demanded one more opportunity to the appellants to comply with the orders of the Registry. [Paras 16, 17] [631-B, G] Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal Kotah & Anr., AIR 1955 SC 425 : [1955] SCR 1 – relied on.
1.2 The delay in filing the application filed by the appellants before the High Court is hereby condoned. The appellants are granted one month’s time as an outer limit to cure the defects pointed out by the Registry in their Review Application. [Para 19] [632-A]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.