'Procedural Irregularity Can't Defeat Substantive Right': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Dismissing Objections To Decree Due to Misapplication of Provisions
Observing that procedural irregularity cannot defeat substantive rights, the Supreme Court provided relief to the decree objector whose objection plea was refused by the High Court on the grounds of misapplication of the provisions in filing his objections towards execution of the decree. The case relates to the ascertainment of the right in a suit property where the first partition...
Observing that procedural irregularity cannot defeat substantive rights, the Supreme Court provided relief to the decree objector whose objection plea was refused by the High Court on the grounds of misapplication of the provisions in filing his objections towards execution of the decree.
The case relates to the ascertainment of the right in a suit property where the first partition suit recognized the decree objector/appellant's right in a suit. Further, a second partition suit was filed also recognizing the respondent's right in a suit property. The dispute was related to the second partition suit where the decree passed in respondent's favour recognizing his right in the suit property when the appellant's right was already recognized was objected by the appellant by filing an application under Section 47 and Order XXI Rule 58 and 97 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
The High Court refused to allow the appellant's civil revision against the First Appellate Court's order. The High Court reasoned that an application objecting to the decree cannot be entertained on the grounds of misapplication of the law.
Setting aside the High Court's decision, the bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Sanjay Karol observed that irrespective of the fact that the appellant had misapplied the provision while objecting to the decree, he can't be denied his substantive right in a suit property because of the rights accrued to him by virtue of first partition suit.
“The ground taken by the High Court to dismiss the revision application is that the appellant herein misapplied the provisions in filing his objections before the executing court, inasmuch as the objection petition mentioned both Section 47 as also Order XXI Rule 58 and 97 of the CPC. The High Court found that both these sets of provisions could not be applied together given that the method of assailing the orders passed therein are different and cannot co-exist. Whilst looking at it purely from a procedural point of view, this may have some merit; however, as has been long established, procedural irregularity cannot defeat substantive rights or cannot subvert substantive justice. Since the objector or his father already had a decree in their favour, fruits thereof cannot be denied to them by virtue of the fact that while attempting to protect their rights in a subsequent suit which would have affected their enjoyment of such property, the Sections or Orders under which they sought such protection, were incorrect.”, the judgment authored by Justice Karol said.
In essence, the court said that the party in whose favor a substantial right has been generated cannot be denied the enjoyment of the right because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence, or even infraction of the rules of procedure.
The Court observed that when the appellant's right in the suit property attained finality by virtue of the first partition suit then the decree passed in the second partition suit recognizing the right of the respondent must necessarily exclude the portions which already stand decreed per the first partition suit.
Since it was unclear from the record that the portion of Khasra No. 2259 recognizing the right of the respondent in a second partition suit was the same piece of land granted to the appellants, therefore the court rather than deciding itself the objection taken by the appellants deemed it fit to refer the matter to the First Appellate Court to take a decision on the objections of the appellant afresh, on merits.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anunnay Mehta, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mr. Vinayak, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. A.K. Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, AOR
Case Title: JOGINDER SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRs Versus DR. VIRINDERJIT SINGH GILL (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 838