Hyper-technicalities can't prevent courts from delivering justice: HC

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, June 9

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that hyper-technicalities should not come in the court’s way while providing justice to people. Justice Anil Kshetarpal ruled that a court was expected to rise above the hyper-technicalities to deliver justice in the real sense.

Wide powers

The court has wide powers to pass appropriate directions in the facts and circumstances of the case to deliver justice. — Justice Anil Kshetarpal, High Court

Justice Kshetarpal further added that a Constitutional Court was not expected to be constrained by procedural laws unless there was specific prohibition. The case has its genesis in the filing of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a shop-cum-office.

It was agreed by both the parties to the litigation that they would get a consent decree passed on the basis of a compromise after appearing before a Lok Adalat. But the decree was not passed due to lack of proper advice.

One of the parties then filed an execution petition, which was dismissed. Eventually, a revision petition was filed, assailing the correctness of the order dismissing the execution petition. The high court then remitted to the matter to the executing court for passing an appropriate order.

The matter was placed before Justice Kshetarpal after the judgment’s review was sought. One of the arguments was that the court travelled beyond the revision petition’s scope. Going into the technicalities, the review petitioner argued the court on one hand treated the revision petition to be filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the other, it issued directions while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Justice Kshetarpal asserted the question for consideration was whether the court was helpless in such a situation? “While hearing cases, the court is faced with new challenges every day. The court is required to devise methods to ensure substantive justice between the parties in the peculiar facts of each case. It is not expected that a Constitutional Court will be constrained by procedural law unless there is a specific prohibition. In order to do substantive justice, it is expected that the court will rise above the hyper-technicalities in order to deliver justice in the real sense,” Justice Kshetarpal asserted.

Referring to the case in hand, Justice Kshetarpal added the revision petition was filed under Article 227, which gave enough powers to the high court to superintend over the working of the courts and the tribunals.

Dismissing the revision plea, Justice Kshetarpal added the court had sufficient powers not only under Section 115, but also Article 227 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which gave inherent powers to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated. “The court has wide powers to pass appropriate directions in the facts and circumstances of the case to deliver justice,” Justice Kshetarpal concluded.