When court should not permit rectification of procedural irregularity committed by party?

In Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors. MANU/SC/0264/2005 : AIR2005SC2441 , this Court has categorically held:

All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions of CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice.

In Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and Anr. MANU/SC/2173/2005 : AIR2006SC269 , it was observed:

17. Non-compliance with any procedural requirement relating to a pleading, memorandum of appeal or application or petition for relief should not entail automatic dismissal or rejection, unless the relevant statute or rule so mandates. Procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure, a hand-maiden to justice, should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use. The well recognized exceptions to this principle are:

i) where the Statute prescribing the procedure, also prescribes specifically the consequence of non-compliance.

ii) where the procedural defect is not rectified even after it is pointed out and due opportunity is given for rectifying it;

iii) where the non-compliance or violation is proved to be deliberate or mischievous;

iv) where the rectification of defect would affect the case on merits or will affect the jurisdiction of the court.

v) in case of Memorandum of Appeal, there is complete absence of authority and the appeal is presented without the knowledge, consent and authority of the appellant.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 2243 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5026 of 2007)

Decided On: 08.04.2009

 Lakshmi  Vs.  Chinnammal and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Sinha and Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.

Read full judgment here: Click here

Print Page