[ad_1]
Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/666/2025 on 15 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:3950
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPMS No. 666 of 2025
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Sagar Kothari, Advocate for the
petitioner.
2. Mr. Sushil Vashistha, Standing Counsel
for the State of Uttarakhand.
3. In this writ petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution, petitioner has challenged the
judgment dated 11.12.2024 passed by Ist
Additional District Judge, Dehradun in
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 100 of 2022. By the
said judgment, the order of rejection of delay
condonation application, passed by Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Dehradun in Miscellaneous
Case No. 38 of 2020 was set aside and the
delay was condoned subject to payment of
cost of Rs. 2000/- by the respondents-
appellants.
4. Petitioner has challenged the said order
on the ground that Miscellaneous Appeal was
not maintainable and only revision under
Section 115 CPC could have been filed
challenging rejection of delay condonation
application.
5. This Court is not inclined to interfere
with the impugned judgment. Law is well
settled that courts are meant to do justice
between the parties and one of the basic
2025:UHC:3950
principle is that both parties should be heard
before rendering any decision. Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab
and another v. Shamlal Murari and another,
reported in (1976) 1 SCC 719 has held as
under:-
“8. … It has been wisely observed that procedural
prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a
lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of
justice. Where the non-compliance, tho’ procedural, will
thwart fair hearing or prejudice doing of justice to
parties, the rule is mandatory. But, grammar apart, if
the breach can be corrected without injury to a just
disposal of the case, we should not enthrone a
regulatory requirement into a dominant desideratum.
After all, courts are to do justice, not to wreck this end
product on technicalities. Viewed in this perspective,
even what is regarded as mandatory traditionally may,
perhaps, have to be moderated into wholesome
directions to be complied with in time or in extended
time.”
6. Admittedly, the suit filed by petitioner
was decreed ex parte against the
respondents-appellants by the Trial Court. The
application for setting aside ex parte decree
filed by the respondents-appellants was
rejected by Trial Court on the ground of delay,
therefore, they had challenged the rejection
of their delay condonation application.
Learned Additional District Judge has given
valid reasons for allowing the Appeal.
7. Thus, there is no scope for interference.
The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
15.05.2025
Navin
NAVEEN
Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006
da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001,
CHANDRA
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA87564
3AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN
CHANDRA
Date: 2025.05.15 19:13:50 -07’00’
[ad_2]
Source link