In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with a decision by the Calcutta High Court that permitted a defendant in a civil suit to file a written statement after a delay of 17 years. The Supreme Court noted that the delay resulted from confusion caused by the High Court’s registry, which erroneously listed the case as “disposed of” on its official website back in 2000.
The bench, comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, emphasised that delays and laches not attributable to the defendant should not obstruct the path to achieving substantive justice. The Court highlighted the principle that procedural rules are meant to serve justice, not hinder it, stating, “Procedure, well and truly, is only the handmaiden of justice. The discretion granted to Courts has to be exercised on a case-specific basis.”
In this case, the defendant had not filed the written statement when initially served with summons in 2000 because the High Court’s website indicated that the suit had been disposed of on March 1, 2000. However, when the case was unexpectedly listed again after a lengthy gap on January 17, 2017, the defendant requested additional time to file the written submission.
The High Court’s Single Judge initially rejected the defendant’s request to accept the written submission, but the Division Bench later allowed it. The Division Bench recognized the confusion regarding the suit’s status and upheld the principle that cases should be resolved on their merits rather than dismissed due to procedural technicalities.
The plaintiff, dissatisfied with this decision, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the defendant had failed to file a written statement when originally summoned in 2000. The plaintiff contended that the application for an extension of time to file the statement, after such a long delay, should be denied.
Conversely, the defendant argued that the sequence of events clearly demonstrated that there was no intentional or negligent delay on their part. The defendant pointed out that the High Court’s website incorrectly showed the suit as disposed of, a fact later verified by the High Court’s orders and reports from its Registry.
The Supreme Court found merit in the defendant’s arguments and upheld the Division Bench’s decision, allowing the defendant to file the written statement despite the substantial delay. The Court concluded that the confusion created by the High Court’s Registry was primarily responsible for the delay, stating, “The sequence of events clearly indicates that the respondent cannot be said to be solely at fault, the situation that prevailed is a direct result of the confusion created by the Registry of the High Court.”
The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, reaffirming the importance of prioritising substantive justice over procedural formalities.
