- (1.) ARUN Tandon, J. Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Nobody is present on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 even in the revised reading of the cause list.
(2.) ORIGINAL Suit No. 445 of 1965 was filed by the petitioners for injunction as well as for declaration that the plaintiffs- petitioners are the owner of the property in dispute. The said suit was dismissed for want of prosecution by the trial Court vide order dated 12th November, 1967. The plaintiffs filed an application for recall of the said order of the trial Court. The application was dismissed by the trial Court. Subsequently a restoration application under Section 151 C. P. C. was moved by the plaintiff, which was also dismissed by the trial Court by means of the order dated 19th November, 1977. Again an application for restoration of the said application was filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners. The trial Court by means of the order dated 15th December, 1979 allowed the aforesaid application with a condition that the plaintiff shall pay a cost of Rs. 25 within a week from the date the aforesaid order was passed. Admittedly the plaintiff committed a default and did not make payment of cost of Rs. 25 within the time specified (within a week ). However, the said cost was paid by the plaintiffs on 5th February, 1980 (after 46 days from the date the said order was passed ). The said suit came up for hearing before the trial Court on 8th February, 1980. By means of the order dated 8th February, 1980 the trial Court dismissed the said suit filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners on the ground that the order restoring the suit to its original number dated 15th December, 1979 was passed with a condition which the plaintiffs had failed to comply. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 8th February, 1980 the petitioner field an appeal, which was numbered as Civil Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 1980 before the District Judge, Mirzapur. By means of the order dated 29th August, 1981, the District Judge, Mirzapur dismissed the said appeal filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners. Against the said order of the trial Court dated 8th February, 1980 and that of the District Judge, Mirzapur dated 29th August, 1981, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition.
(3.) FROM the perusal of the orders of the trial Court as well as of the appellate Court dated 8th February, 1980 and dated 29th August, 1981 respectively, it is apparently clear that authorities had adopted hyper technical view for dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners. In the opinion of the Court, if there has been some delay (46 days) in depositing the cost in pursuance of the order of the trial Court dated 15th December, 1979, the trial Court should have adopted a liberal attitude in the matter and should have not dismissed the said suit the delay in depositing, could have been condoned by payment of some additional cost specifically when the cost was paid before the date on which suit was dismissed. The Court below has lost sight of the fact that Courts must be justice oriented and should grant relief without giving much importance to technicalities rules of procedure. Reference Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, AIR 1969 SC 1267, wherein it has been held that the substantial justice and technicalities, if pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice should not be defeated on technicalities. No procedure in Court of law should be allowed to defeat the cause of substantial justice on some technicalities. Reference Ghanshyam Dass & Ors. v. Dominion of India & Ors. , (1984) 3 SCC 46. In view of the settled legal position, the orders passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. Original Suit No. 445 of 1965, which is pending for adjudication since 1965 is restored to its original number. The trial Court is directed to consider and decide the said suit in accordance with law within six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it.;