'Delay Due To Confusion Created By HC Registry' : Supreme Court Affirms Permission Given To File Written Statement After 17 Years

The Supreme Court recently refused to interfere with the decision of the Calcutta High Court to allow a defendant in a civil suit to file a written statement after a delay of 17 years.

The Court noted that the delay was a "direct result of the confusion created by the Registry of the High Court", as the case status on the official website erroneously showed in the year 2000 that the suit had been disposed of.

The Court said that delay and laches not attributable to the defendant in filing a written statement could not come in a way to achieve substantive justice.

“It must not be lost sight of that ultimately; procedural technicalities have to give way to substantive justice. Procedure, well and truly, is only the handmaiden of justice. The discretion granted to Courts has to be exercised on a case-specific basis. Undisputedly, 'procedural laws are primarily intended to achieve the ends of justice and, normally, not to shut the doors of justice for the parties at the very threshold.”, the bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah said.

The defendant/respondent in the present case didn't file the written statement since the High Court's website showed that the case was disposed of on 01.03.2000 . However, when the case was listed suddenly after a prolonged gap on 17.01.2017, the defendant sought an extension to file the written submission.

The High Court's Single Judge turned down the defendant's application to take written submissions on record, however, the Division Bench acceded to the same.

The High Court's Division Bench found sufficient cause on the grounds of the confusion relating to the pendency of the suit as well as the principle that a matter is best adjudged on merits rather than being thrown out on technicalities.

Following this, the plaintiff/appellant moved to the Supreme Court against the Division Bench order permitting the defendant to file written submissions.

Before the Supreme Court, it was contended by the Appellant/plaintiff that the defendant had not filed any written statement in the year 2000 when they were served with summons, therefore an application filed by them seeking an extension of time to file a written statement after a prolonged delay should be dismissed.

On the other hand, the respondent/defendant argued that the sequence of events and list of dates would show that there was neither any deliberate/wilful laches nor any lacuna on the part of the respondent in not filing the Written Statement on time, primarily on the ground that as early as on 01.03.2000, the status of the suit was shown as disposed of, which position is factually verified by the subsequent orders of the High Court in the suit and by the reports submitted by its Registry.

Finding force in the respondent's contention, the court upheld the view taken by the High Court's Division Bench that the respondent be permitted to file a written submission even filed after a considerable delay because no fault can be attributed to the respondent for the confusion created by the Registry of the High Court.

“In the present instance, we find that the sequence of events clearly indicates that the respondent cannot be said to be solely at fault for as it was under the impression that the suit already stood disposed of and thus, there was no requirement/occasion to file the Written Statement.”, the court said.

“Admittedly, the case was listed suddenly after a prolonged gap on 17.01.2017, whereafter that the respondent filed an appropriate application. Moreover, the reports dated 25.01.2017 and 11.05.2023 submitted by the Registry of the High Court indicate that (a) the official website of the High Court did indeed state that the suit had been disposed of on 01.03.2000, and; (b) the High Court could not, for reasons best known to it alone, trace out any orders in the file of the suit pre-17.01.2017. Stricto sensu, the situation that prevailed is a direct result of the confusion created by the Registry of the High Court. In this view, it would be improper to not permit the taking on record of the Written Statement of the respondent apropos the suit.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Dr. S.Muralidhar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Indranil Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Arup Bhattacharyya, Adv. Mr. Palzer Moktan, Adv. Ms. Suparna Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Mrinal Chaudhry, Adv. Ms. Mehar Bedi, Adv. Mr. Kartik, Adv. Ms. Aanchal Tikmani, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Ms. Daisy Hannah, AOR Mr. Sumanta Biswas, Adv. Mr. Bikash Shaw, Adv. Mr. Samarth Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Oindrila Sen, Adv.

Case Title: PIC DEPARTMENTALS PVT. LTD. VERSUS SREELEATHERS PVT. LTD.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 580

Click here to read/download the order