Summary
In a 1999 suit on the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court, the defendant filed its written statement only in 2017, after the suit, which the High Court's website had shown as disposed of since 01.03.2000, was suddenly listed again. The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision to take the written statement on record on payment of costs: the power to extend time must be used cautiously, but here the delay resulted from confusion created by the High Court Registry, and procedure must yield to substantive justice.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could enlarge time and take on record a written statement filed about 17 years after the defendant entered appearance, under Chapter XXXVIII Rule 46 of the Original Side Rules.
- Whether the defendant had shown sufficient cause, given that the High Court's records had shown the suit as disposed of.
Provisions considered
- Chapter XXXVIII Rule 46, Rules of the High Court at Calcutta (Original Side), 1914The rule empowers the Court to enlarge time fixed by the Rules or by order, on just terms, even on an application made after the time has expired. The Division Bench relied on it to permit the written statement on payment of Rs. 25,000 costs, and the Supreme Court found the discretion rightly exercised. (¶¶ 9, 12, 17)
- Chapter IX Rules 2 and 3; Chapter X Rule 27, Rules of the High Court at Calcutta (Original Side), 1914These rules, on filing written statements within time and on transfer of undefended suits to the Peremptory Undefended List, were cited by the respondent in support of the Court's power to enlarge time; the Court treated the question as one of discretion on the facts. (¶¶ 12, 14, 15)
Held
- The power to extend time for filing a written statement must not be used as a matter of course but with great caution, so that the purpose of procedural law is not defeated and dilatory litigants do not abuse the process. The precedents relied on by the appellant state the correct law but did not help it on these unusual facts. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- Whether to extend time cannot be decided in a strait-jacket. The court must assess the facts of each case, whether the request is genuine and, more importantly, whether refusing it may lead to a miscarriage of justice. Procedural technicalities must give way to substantive justice, procedure being the handmaiden of justice, and procedural laws are not meant to shut parties out at the threshold. (¶ 15)
- The defendant could not be said to be solely at fault: the High Court website showed the suit as disposed of on 01.03.2000, the Registry's reports of 25.01.2017 and 11.05.2023 confirmed this and found no orders on file before 17.01.2017, and the defendant applied promptly once the suit was suddenly listed. As the situation stemmed from confusion created by the Registry, it would be improper to refuse to take the written statement on record. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- The Court asked the High Court to proceed with the 1999 suit without granting time or indulgence to either party, and, on the administrative side, to take steps so that what emerged from the Registry reports does not recur in any other case. (¶¶ 19, 21)
Result
Appeal dismissed; Division Bench judgment allowing the written statement on record upheld; costs of Rs. 25,000 to be paid to the appellant within ten days; High Court to proceed with the suit expeditiously; no opinion expressed on the merits.