Plaintiff Quoting Wrong Statutory Provision In Application Doesn't Bar Court From Considering It: Delhi High Court

The application for restoration of a suit was filed by the /plaintiff under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It was submitted that the main suit was dismissed as a result of non-appearance, which was due to an inadvertent mistake in noting down the next date of hearing. 

The respondent opposed the application stating that it is filed under Section 151 CPC instead of under Order IX of CPC. It was argued that where specific provision exists in CPC for a relief, the inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked.

Rejecting this argument, the Court observed,

"It is trite that quoting a wrong statutory provision does not create a bar and stand in the way of considering the application, as held in Nitish Arora (supra). Thus, on this aspect, this Court is not convinced by the contention of learned counsel for defendant"

Thus, in the interest of justice the suit was restored with costs of Rs.10,000/- in favour of defendant and Rs.5,000/- in favour of Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee to be deposited within two weeks.

Advocate Nandini Sahni appeared for Plaintiff, Advocate Pradeep Kumar for Defendant.

Case Title: Vijay Kumar Nagpal v. Parveen Kumar Nagpal