Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court set aside a trial court order that had barred a defendant from leading evidence solely because the written statement on record was unsigned by her. Holding that rigid procedural objections cannot override substantive justice, especially when the written statement had been accepted by the court earlier and acted upon by the opposite party, the High Court permitted the defendant to examine one witness and directed expeditious disposal of the civil suit .
Facts
The case arose from a civil suit in which multiple defendants were arrayed. A written statement was filed on behalf of all defendants, but it bore the signature of only one defendant. The suit was initially pending on the Original Side of the Delhi High Court, where the written statement was accepted without objection and treated as the defence of all defendants. The plaintiff even filed a replication expressly responding to the written statement of all defendants.
Subsequently, when the matter reached the trial court stage, defendant no. 2 sought permission to lead evidence. However, the trial court declined this request, holding that since the written statement was unsigned by defendant no. 2, she could not be allowed to adduce evidence. This order became the subject matter of challenge before the High Court .
Issues
The principal issue before the High Court was whether a defendant can be denied the opportunity to lead evidence merely because the written statement on record does not carry her signature, despite the fact that the pleading had already been accepted by the court and treated as a common written statement of all defendants. The case also raised the broader issue of balancing procedural compliance with the overarching objective of delivering substantive justice in civil trials.
Petitioners’ arguments
The petitioners contended that the trial court had adopted an unduly technical approach in refusing permission to lead evidence. It was argued that the written statement had been filed on behalf of all defendants and was signed by one of them, who was closely related to defendant no. 2. The pleading had been accepted by the court when the suit was pending on the Original Side, and the plaintiff had clearly acknowledged it by filing a replication responding to the defence of all defendants. In these circumstances, denying defendant no. 2 the right to examine even a single witness would result in grave prejudice and would amount to sacrificing justice at the altar of technicality .
Respondent’s arguments
The respondent fairly accepted notice and, after discussion, did not seriously oppose the setting aside of the impugned order. However, the respondent sought a direction that the trial court be asked to proceed with the matter expeditiously so that the litigation does not get prolonged on account of the challenge to the procedural order. This balanced stand of the respondent weighed with the Court while moulding the relief .
Analysis of the law
The High Court examined the purpose of pleadings and procedural requirements under civil law. Written statements are intended to place the defence of a party on record so that issues can be framed and adjudicated fairly. While signatures on pleadings are important for authenticity, procedural law is not meant to become a tool of injustice. Once a written statement has been accepted by the court, acted upon by the parties, and forms the basis of the trial, a later objection on the ground of signature alone cannot invalidate the defence or curtail a party’s right to lead evidence.
Precedent analysis
Though no detailed citation analysis was undertaken, the Court’s approach aligns with settled principles repeatedly affirmed by higher courts that procedural rules are handmaidens of justice. Courts have consistently held that defects which do not go to the root of the matter and which have caused no prejudice to the opposite side should not be allowed to derail the adjudicatory process. The present order reflects this jurisprudential thread by prioritising fairness over form.
Court’s reasoning
The Court noted that the written statement had been signed by one defendant and accepted as the defence of all defendants at an earlier stage of the proceedings. Importantly, the plaintiff had also treated it as such by filing a replication responding to the written statement of all defendants. The Court found that, in these circumstances, it would be unjust to prevent defendant no. 2 from leading evidence, particularly when the request was limited to examining only one witness. The impugned order was therefore found to be overly technical and unsustainable in law .
Conclusion
Allowing the petition with the consent of both parties, the High Court set aside the trial court’s order and directed that defendant no. 2 be permitted to examine one witness. The Court also laid down a clear schedule, directing the witness to remain present on the date already fixed or on a fresh date to be assigned by the trial court, depending on feasibility. The trial court was further requested to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible .
Implications
This decision reinforces the principle that civil trials should not be derailed by hyper-technical objections once pleadings have been accepted and relied upon. It serves as a reminder to trial courts that procedural compliance must be interpreted in a manner that advances, rather than obstructs, justice. The ruling will be particularly relevant in multi-defendant suits, where common written statements are often filed, and underscores that denial of the right to lead evidence should remain an exception, not the rule.
Case law references
- Procedural law as handmaiden of justice
The present order reiterates the well-established principle that procedural defects which cause no prejudice and do not affect the merits of the case should not defeat substantive rights of parties.
FAQs
1. Can a defendant be barred from leading evidence due to an unsigned written statement?
Not necessarily. If the written statement has been accepted by the court and acted upon by the parties, a mere technical defect like a missing signature may not justify denial of evidence.
2. Does acceptance of a written statement cure procedural defects?
Yes, courts may treat certain procedural defects as cured if the pleading has been accepted, relied upon, and no prejudice is caused to the opposite party.
3. What approach should courts take in procedural matters?
Courts are expected to adopt a justice-oriented approach, ensuring that procedural rules facilitate fair adjudication rather than obstruct it.
