Delhi High Court: Substance Over Form Prevails; Procedural Lapses Should Not Impede Justice as Striking Off Defense Reversed Amid COVID-19 Delay Considerations

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court overturned the trial court’s orders, which had dismissed the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay and struck off the petitioner’s defense. The High Court ruled that procedural lapses, such as citing the wrong legal provision, should not impede justice. The court directed the trial court to re-examine the condonation application on its merits and decide the case afresh.

Facts of the Case

1. Nature of the Case: The dispute arose from a suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner seeking:
   • Permanent and mandatory injunction,
   • Recovery of damages.
2. Filing of Written Statement:
   • The petitioner filed the written statement digitally on September 22, 2020, along with an application for condonation of delay.
   • The delay was attributed to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 lockdown.
3. Trial Court’s Actions:
   • On July 21, 2022, the trial court dismissed the condonation of delay application on the grounds that it was filed under Section 151 of the CPC instead of the Limitation Act, 1963.
   • Subsequently, on July 1, 2023, the trial court struck off the petitioner’s defense.
4. High Court Intervention: The petitioner filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging these orders.

Issues

1. Procedural Validity: Could the condonation application be dismissed solely because it cited the wrong legal provision?
2. Substantive Justice vs. Procedural Technicalities: Should procedural lapses lead to the striking off of the petitioner’s defense?
3. Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic: Was the delay in filing justifiable given the Supreme Court’s suspension of the limitation period during the pandemic?

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. COVID-19 Lockdown:
   • The delay was caused by the nationwide lockdown when courts were non-operational.
   • Citing the Supreme Court’s directive, the limitation period was suspended from March 15, 2020, to account for disruptions.
2. Minimal Delay: After adjusting for the suspension period, the delay was only 60 days.
3. Substance Over Form:
   • The application was filed in substance under the Limitation Act, but an incorrect citation of Section 151 CPC should not have led to dismissal.
   • Such errors are considered “curable defects” and should not prejudice the case.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Prejudice Caused:
   • The respondent, being a senior citizen aged 87 years, faced undue hardship due to the petitioner’s delay.
   • The petitioner’s repeated delays and procedural lapses justified striking off the defense.
2. Deliberate Delay:
   • The respondent alleged that the delay was intentional, demonstrating the petitioner’s disregard for procedural compliance.

Analysis of the Law

1. Section 151 CPC vs. Limitation Act:
   • The petitioner’s application cited Section 151 CPC, a general provision granting courts inherent powers to ensure justice.
   • The Limitation Act is the specific law governing condonation of delays.
   • Courts generally treat such errors as non-fatal if they do not mislead the opposing party or court.
2. Substantive Justice:
   • Procedural laws are tools to achieve justice, not hurdles to obstruct it.
   • The court emphasized that dismissing an application solely due to an incorrect citation undermines justice.
3. Supreme Court’s Suspension of Limitation Period:
   • The petitioner relied on the suspension of limitation due to COVID-19 to argue that the actual delay was minimal.

Precedent Analysis

The High Court referred to established principles that procedural lapses should not defeat substantive justice:

1. Procedural irregularities, such as incorrect citations, are “curable defects” and should not be treated as fatal.
2. Courts are empowered to consider the substance of an application over its form, particularly when no prejudice is caused.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Improper Dismissal by Trial Court:
   • The trial court erred by focusing on the technicality of the incorrect legal provision rather than the merits of the application.
   • The petitioner’s application clearly sought condonation of delay, and its substance was not impacted by the incorrect citation.
2. Rights of Both Parties:
   • Striking off the defense without considering the condonation application on merits violated the principles of fairness.
   • The trial court overlooked its responsibility to balance procedural compliance with ensuring justice.
3. COVID-19 Considerations:
   • The nationwide lockdown significantly disrupted normal legal processes.
   • The petitioner’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s suspension of the limitation period was valid and should have been factored into the decision.

Conclusion

The High Court:

1. Set aside the trial court’s orders dated July 21, 2022, and July 1, 2023.
2. Directed the trial court to:
   • Rehear the condonation application on its merits.
   • Decide the respondent’s application for striking off the defense based on the outcome of the condonation application.
3. Clarified that its order does not prejudice the merits of the parties’ contentions.

Implications

1. Reaffirming Substantive Justice:
   • The judgment reinforces the principle that justice should not be subordinated to procedural technicalities.
2. Flexibility in Pandemic-Era Delays:
   • The judgment recognizes the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and accommodates the associated procedural challenges.
3. Judicial Discretion:
   • The judgment highlights the courts’ discretionary powers to address procedural lapses in the interest of justice.

Also Read – Supreme Court Resolves Jain Religious Trust Dispute: Enforces Mediation Settlement Finalizing ₹8.11 Crores Compensation and Ownership of Temples in Ajmer