HC rules, Litigant can’t be penalised for Counsel’s diary mistake, eviction suit restored with Cost and tree plantation

In a significant intervention touching the balance between procedural discipline and substantive justice, the Rajasthan High Court stepped in to examine whether a long-pending eviction suit could be buried merely due to a minor delay caused by a diary error, raising critical questions about how far courts should go in prioritising technical lapses over adjudication on merits.

The controversy began with an eviction and mesne profits suit instituted as far back as the late nineteen-eighties, which had progressed to the evidence stage after issues were framed. Trouble arose when the matter was dismissed in default after the plaintiffs failed to appear on a crucial date, an absence they attributed to an inadvertent noting of the wrong hearing date in their diary. Seeking revival, the plaintiffs moved for restoration along with a plea for condonation of delay, explaining that they were also out of town for urgent personal reasons. The trial court, however, refused relief, rejecting the application purely on the ground of delay.

This prompted the appeal, with the plaintiffs arguing that vital questions of law and fact relating to eviction deserved a full trial, while the defendants maintained that there was no justified explanation either for non-appearance or for the delay.

Taking a firm yet pragmatic view, the High Court faulted the trial court for adopting a rigid approach, holding that the delay was neither fatal nor prolonged and had been satisfactorily explained. The Bench underscored that courts must not allow technicalities to eclipse justice, especially where disputes involving substantive rights remain undecided.

Emphasising this, the Court observed that “the delay was not such which could be held to be fatal or prolonged,” and noted that “important question of law and facts are involved in the suit… which are liable to be decided on its merits.” Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, restored the suit to its original position, and imposed a cost along with a unique condition, directing the plaintiffs to plant saplings in public areas, calling it an initiative taken “in the interest of public at large and for the greater public good.”

Case Title: Smt. Rashidan & Anr. Vs. Smt. Noorjahan & Ors.

Case No.: S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4812/2019

Coram: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand

Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Mohammed Anees

Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Samar Pratap Singh Naruka, Lokesh Tiwari, M. M. Ranjan (Sr.Adv.)

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com