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

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH

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'