Summary
The Supreme Court restored an opportunity to cure filing defects in a review application that had been rejected after non-compliance with the Registrar’s conditional order. Applying the principle that procedure facilitates justice and should not be treated as a penal trap, it held that the controversy warranted a liberal approach. It condoned the delay in the restoration application and allowed one month as the outer limit for curing defects, after which the review could be placed before the appropriate Bench.
Issues
- Whether the appellants should receive a further opportunity to cure procedural defects in their review application notwithstanding delayed restoration proceedings.
Held
- Procedural rules serve the administration of justice. Sangram Singh cautions against excessively technical construction that frustrates that purpose, while preserving fairness to both sides and effect for clearly defined exceptions. In the circumstances and nature of this controversy, the High Court should have condoned delay and afforded one more opportunity to comply with the Registry’s directions. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- Relief was conditional. The Court condoned delay in the application before the High Court and fixed one month as the outer limit to remove the review filing defects. Only upon curing them was the review to be placed before the appropriate Bench for orders according to law; the land dispute and substantive review merits were not decided. (¶¶ 14, 18, 19, 20)
Result
Appeal allowed and impugned order set aside. Delay condoned; appellants given one month as the outer limit to cure review defects, with the review thereafter to be placed before the appropriate Bench in accordance with law.