Decided on June 06,2006

Farooq Ahmed Malik Respondents


- (1.) PETITIONER has moved this application for condoning the delay which had crept in filing the revision petition against the order dated 17th March, 2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Bank cases), Srinagar, whereby and where -under the application for restoration came to be dismissed, hereinafter referred to as impugned order.
(2.) THIS application came up for consideration before this Court on 11th November, 2005. After hearing learned counsel for parties, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Registry was directed to list this application along with the revision petition. Accordingly, revision petition is taken on board. Registry to diarize the revision petition. FACTS.
(3.) THIS case has a checkered history. It appears that petitioner/plaintiff has been dragged from post to pillar and pillar to post due to wrong advice and inaction which has taken away the settings of law and caused delay in determining the core question involved in the lis. It also appears that the attention of the trial court has also not been drawn towards the very important fact which would have set the controversy at rest. It is beaten law of the land that procedure is the hand made in order to do justice between the parties. Rules and procedure are not themselves an end but are means to achieve ends of justice. The procedure of law is meant to further the ends of justice and not to defeat the ends of justice. Apex Court in case titled as Owners & Parties interested in M. V. "Vali Pero" v. Fernandeo Lopez, reported in 1989 SC 2206, has observed as under: - "18. Rules of procedure are not by themselves an end but the means to achieve the ends of justice. Rules of procedure are tools forged to achieve justice and are not hurdles to obstruct the pathway to justice. Construction of a rule of procedure which promotes justice and prevents its miscarriage by enabling the Court to do justice in myriad situations, all of which cannot be envisaged, acting within the limits of the permissible construction, must be preferred to that which is rigid and negatives the cause of justice. The reason is obvious. Procedure is meant to sub -serve and not rule the cause of justice. Where the outcome and fairness of the procedure adopted is not doubted and the essentials of the prescribed procedure have been followed, there is no reason to discard the result simply because certain details which have not prejudicially affected the result have been inadvertently omitted in a particular case. In our view, this appears to be the pragmatic approach which needs to be adopted while construing a purely procedural provision. Otherwise, rules of procedure will become the mistress instead of remaining the handmaid of justice, contrary to the role attributed to it in our legal system." Apex Court in case titled as C.B.I., Special Investigation Cell v. Anupam J. Kulkarni, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1768, has observed as under: - "11. .................The procedural law is meant to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate the same. It is an accepted rule that an interpretation which furthers the ends of justice should be preferred. It is true that the police custody is not the be -all and end -all of the whole investigation but yet it is one of its primary requisites particularly in the investigation of serious and heinous crimes. The legislature also noticed this and permitted limited policy custody. The period of first fifteen days should naturally apply in respect of the investigation of that specific case for which the accused is held in custody. But such custody cannot further be held to be a bar for invoking a fresh remand to such custody like police custody in respect of an altogether different case involving the same accused." Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery in this Court on 8th April, 1988, which was transferred to the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Srinagar. Defendants filed written statement on 16th August, 1988. Learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Srinagar, transferred the case to the Court of District Judge (Bank Cases) Srinagar vide order dated 4th Feb., 1989. Issues came to be framed vide order dated 2nd May, 1989.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.