Technicalities

Ends of justice are better served when matters are adjudicated upon their merits rather than being dismissed on hyper-technical grounds.

Cases must be decided on merits instead of technicalities and the technicalities should not be a hindrance in the way of justice.

When the prosecution can prove its case on its salient features then unnecessary technicalities should not be allowed to hamper the very purpose of the law on the subject.

Unjust and wrong decision which is also against substantive law of the country has to be avoided by Court.

Prescriptions of statute are not mere technicalities and disregard thereof would render entire process into miscarriage of justice.

Prescriptions of statute are not mere technicalities and disregard thereof would render entire process into miscarriage of justice.

Rule of justice demand that parties could not be non-suited on technicalities when their valuable rights were involved/subjudiced.

Court, in aid of justice, vests with unfettered powers to provide, mould and grant adequate relief even if not claimed through the contents of the plaint.

Procedural technicalities cannot restrain the court in doing complete justice.

Applicant / plaintiff was aggrieved of order passed by Trial Court dismissing suit for failure to file amended title by joining respondent as defendant

Validity

No one should normally be knocked out on technicalities

Rights of parties needed to be adjudicated on merits

Dismissal of suit solely on account of failure in timely filing amended title was always a little harsh

High Court observed that leniency needed to be shown when default was one relating to procedural formality / requirement and not of grave in nature

For such like situation dismissal was left upon discretion of use of word "may"

Penal consequences needed to be avoided at first occasion

Appeal against main order allowing application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was pending and that if was allowed, it would bring compromise degree to life again and would again bring whole proceedings in question as of no substance

Applicant / plaintiff showed his readiness to part with appeal and to have adjudication of all questions on merits

High Court set aside order in question and remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision afresh on merits

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Law favoured decisions on merits rather than on technicalities.

Purpose behind legal and codal formalities and procedure is nothing but only to ensure safe administration of justice and avoid/thwart chances of injustice/miscarriage of justice.

Technicalities were to be avoided by the court while dispensing the justice to arrive at right conclusion.

Applicant assailed order passed by Trial Court before Lower Appellate Court but her revision was dismissed on account of non-supply of memo of revision and its annexures to respondent

Validity

Applicant had already supplied copies of revision application as well as its annexures in office of concerned court as per prevailing practice

Court could only decide matters/disputes on merits and not on basis of technicalities

Court was to refrain from ousting any party from proceedings on basis of technicalities as it would amount to 'technical knockout'

High Court set aside order passed by Lower Appellate Court as same had not been passed in accordance with law and norms of justice

Matter was remanded to Lower Appellate Court for decision afresh

Application was allowed accordingly.

Where law requires an act to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner alone and such dictate of law cannot be termed as technicality.

Whenever it was possible to grant relief under the law, then technicalities in the way of administration of justice should be avoided to the (maximum) possible extent by remaining within the domain of law.

No person should be knocked out in respect of his rights on mere technicality.

Courts would not be shackled by technicalities in the production of evidence and if the court considered that a particular evidence was necessary for just decision, liberal rules would be employed to enable documents to be produced in evidence and such approach advanced the cause of justice and was in comport with Art. 10-A of the Constitution.

Question before the High Court was whether Constitutional petition was maintainable when the same had not been signed by the petitioner but rather had been signed by an advocate instructed on behalf of said petitioner

Validity

Defect was a technicality and law preferred that a matter should not be defeated by technicalities but decided on merits

Chronology of events and history of the matter was to be kept in mind and High Court was required to do complete justice in its Constitutional jurisdiction where often the might of the State was pitted against an individual

Court was not supposed to close its eyes and ears to a matter as opposed to doing complete justice under its discretionary Constitutional jurisdiction.

Law is made to administer safer justice and to resolve controversy inter se the litigants to its legitimate end, rather to knock out any litigant on the basis of technicalities.

Law always favours decision on merits and condemn technicalities.

Law favours decision of case on merits rather on technical knock outs.

While deciding cases, technicalities should not be allowed to stand in the way of administration of justice.

Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court dismissed the application on the ground that two reliefs could not be sought in one application

Validity

Application for setting aside ex parte proceedings/decree contained all facts and prayers regarding ex parte proceedings as well decree and all orders regarding ex parte proceedings stood merged in ex parte order

Court was duty bound to have decided the application in question on merits instead of dismissing the same merely on technicalities

Recording of pro and contra evidence on the application for setting aside ex parte decree was mandatory

High Court set aside the order passed by two courts below and matter was remanded to Trial Court for deciding the application afresh after recording evidence of both the parties

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Cases should be decided on merits and in accordance with law after recording pro and contra evidence of parties and technicalities should be avoided.

Trial Court did not allow the petitioner to produce identity card to compare the signatures of his deceased father, which order was maintained by Lower Appellate Court

Validity

Permission should have been granted to petitioner to produce the documents when respondents had a right to rebut the same through evidence

Courts should have avoided technicalities to deliver the substantial justice

High Court, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, set aside concurrent orders passed by two courts below and application under O. XIII, R.2, C.P.C. was granted with cost

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioner was defendant in suit filed by respondent and he intended to include certain persons in the list of witnesses which was filed by hint after framing of issues

Trial Court allowed the petitioner to include the names in list of witnesses but Lower Appellate Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside the order passed by Trial Court

Validity

Trial Court had discretion under O. XVI, R. 2, C.P.C. to summon new witnesses, if good cause for omission of their names in the list was shown

Element of good cause was a matter of discretion to be exercised by Trial Court

No prohibition existed against summoning of new witnesses as perceived by lower Appellate Court

Parties had a right to bring relevant evidence on record so as to facilitate resolution of controversy with clarity and good reason

Resort to technicalities could hamper the course of justice

Lower Appellate Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction had wrongly presumed a prohibition to exist in the case

Discretion to allow recording of evidence of new witnesses was a matter for Trial Court and the same had been, exercised on the grounds which did not indicate illegality or injustice to require interference

High Court restored order passed by Trial Court

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

English system of administration of justice on which our own is based may be to certain extent technical but we are not to take from that system its defects

Any system, which by giving effect to the form and not to the substance defeats substantive rights, is defective to that extent

Ideal must always be a system that gives it every person what is his.

Where substantial justice has been done, it is not necessary to interfere in Constitutional jurisdiction on the basis of technicalities alone

Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in character and where Courts below have given concurrent conclusions, Supreme Court generally does not interfere in the conclusions arrived at by High Court and Tribunals below.

Where substantial justice has been done, it is not necessary to interfere in Constitutional jurisdiction on the basis of technicalities alone

Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in character and where Courts below have given concurrent conclusions, Supreme Court generally does not interfere in the conclusions arrived at by High Court and Tribunals below.

Parties agreed to the proposition of law that rights of parties should not be defeated on technical grounds and had consented for framing of material issues and remand of case to Trial Court for determination of bone of contention between the parties to the petition

Effect

Supreme Appellate Court framed additional issues and remanded the case to Trial Court for determination of questions in accordance with law

Supreme Appellate Court directed the Trial Court to provide proper opportunity to parties to bring on record evidence in support of their respective claim and to decide the issues in the light thereof

Findings of remaining points were not in contest

Appeal was allowed.

Government functionaries, especially in an Islamic or a democratic society governed by rule of law, are supposed to do justice and not to deprive the people of their rights on ground of technicalities.

Technicalities should not come in the way of substantial justice and people should not be ousted on the ground of technicalities.

Technicalities may not be allowed to hamper the administration of justice.

Trial Court dismissed the suit in the year 1982, and more than 19 years had gone by but even the first appeal against the judgment had not been disposed of

Effect

Cases of the parties be decided on merits and technical knock-out should sparingly be resorted to

Petitioner, in the present case, had successfully embroiled/involved the respondents in technicalities for a period spreading over more than two decades

Supreme Court took the serious note of such state of affairs as the same had contributed to the pendency of cases before the higher forums and observed that unless and until such sort of practice was not arrested with an iron hand, the pendency in the Courts would never come to an end and the parties would spend their entire life and earning in litigation

Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed

Leave to appeal was refused.

parties should not be non-suited on mere technicalities and the lis, so far as possible, has to be decided on merits.

Lis should not be knocked out on technical grounds but endeavours of the Courts should be to decide the matters, involving valuable rights of the parties, on merits and party to the litigation should not be non-suited on mere technical grounds.

Whether too strict adherence to, helps course of justice (Kaikaus, J.).