Application Mentioning Wrong Section Of Law Not Fatal If It Doesn't Cause Prejudice To Court Or Opposite Party: Delhi High Court

Justice Ravinder Dudeja remarked, “Procedural errors, including mentioning incorrect provision of law should not override the substantive justice. The Court has enough powers under Section 151 CPC to ensure that justice is served.”

The Court stated that the substance of an application should be prioritized over its form. If the incorrect Section does not mislead the Court or cause prejudice to the other party, it can be considered as a 'curable defect', the Court said.

“The courts generally prioritize substance over form, especially if the intention and relief sought by the party are apparent. If incorrect Section does not mislead the court or the other party and no prejudice is caused, the mistake is treated as a “curable defect”.”

The Court was considering the petitioner's challenge to the Trial Court's order dismissing his application for condonation of delay.

The respondent/plaintiff had filed an injunction suit against his son petitioner/defendant. Summons was issued to the petitioner and thereafter he sought time to file written statement. He filed the written statement along with an application for condonation of delay on 22 September 2020.

However, the Trail Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay on 21 July 2022. It dismissed the application on the ground that it was filed under Section 151 CPC and not under the Limitation Act, 1963.

Here, the High Court noted that the Trial Court did not address the application on merits. It opined that the Trial Court should have focused on the content of the application rather than technicalities concerning the incorrect section.

It stated that the Trial Court should have considered the petitioner's application based on merit irrespective of the provision under which it was filed.

The Court thus set-aside the Trial Court's order rejecting the application for condonation of delay.

It directed the Trial Court to hear fresh arguments on the petitioner's application for condonation of delay and pass an order based on the merits of the application.

Case title: Rajeev Shukla vs. Gopal Krishna Shukla CM(M) 2342/2024 &CM APPL. 22074/2024)