9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (2) TMI 670 - SC - Indian LawsLetters Patent - Jurisdiction - institution of the suit, in view of the amended provisions of the Code - primacy of the Original Side Rules framed under the Letters Patent over the provisions of the Code - whether a person presenting such plaint after 1st July 2002, would also be required to comply with the amended provisions of Order VI Rule 15 of the Code - HELD THAT - We are of the view that the reference to the provisions of the Code in Rule 1 of Chapter VII of the Original Side Rules cannot be interpreted to limit the scope of such reference to only the provisions of the Code as were existing on the date of such incorporation. It was clearly the intention of the High Court when it framed the Original Side Rules that the plaint should be in conformity of the provisions of Order VI and Order VII of the Code. By necessary implication reference will also have to be made to Section 26 and Order IV of the Code which, along with Order VI and Order VII, concerns the institution of suits. We are ad idem with Mr. Pradip Ghosh on this score. The provisions of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order IV of the Code, upon which the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had placed strong reliance, will also have to be read and understood in that context. The expression duly used in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order IV of the Code implies that the plaint must be filed in accordance with law. The intention of the legislature in bringing about the various amendments in the Code with effect from 1st July, 2002 were aimed at eliminating the procedural delays in the disposal of civil matters. The amendments effected to Section 26, Order IV and Order VI Rule 15, are also geared to achieve such object, but being procedural in nature, they are directory in nature and non-compliance thereof would not automatically render the plaint non-est, as has been held by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. It is nobody's case that the plaint had not been otherwise verified in keeping with the unamended provisions of the Code and Rule 1 of Chapter VII of the Original Side Rules. In fact, as has been submitted at the Bar, the plaint was accepted, after due scrutiny and duly registered and only during the hearing of the appeal was such an objection raised. Thus, even though the amended provisions of Order VI are attracted in the matter of filing of plaints in the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court on account of the reference made to Order VI and Rule 1 of Chapter VII of the Original Side Rules, non-compliance thereof at the initial stage did not render the suit non-est. On account of such finding of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, not only have the proceedings before the learned Single Judge been wiped out, but such a decision has the effect of rendering the proceedings taken in the appeal also non-est. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court took a view which is neither supported by the provisions of the Original Side Rules or the Code nor by the various decisions of this Court on the subject. The views expressed by the Calcutta High Court, being contrary to the established legal position, must give way and is hereby set aside. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order under challenge is set aside. Consequent upon the views expressed by us, the plaint as filed on behalf of the appellants herein must be deemed to have been presented on 26th July, 2002 and not on 28th April, 2004 and the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge on 2nd April, 2004, stands revived. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court is directed to re-consider and hear the appeal filed by the respondents herein on merits as expeditiously as possible.
Issues Involved:
1. Historical origin and jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. 2. Original Side Rules and their relationship with the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure and their impact on the institution of suits. 4. Validity of the suit filed without an affidavit as required by the amended Code. 5. Procedural defects and their curability in the context of the institution of suits. 6. Interpretation of procedural laws and their mandatory or directory nature. Detailed Analysis: 1. Historical Origin and Jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court: The judgment begins with a historical overview of the Calcutta High Court, established by the Indian High Courts Act of 1861 and subsequent Letters Patent in 1862. The Letters Patent granted the High Court Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction within Calcutta's local limits and empowered it to make rules and orders to regulate civil and criminal proceedings. 2. Original Side Rules and Their Relationship with the Code of Civil Procedure: The Original Side Rules, framed under Clause 37 of the Letters Patent, allow the High Court to regulate its own procedures. Section 129 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) also empowers High Courts to make rules for their original civil jurisdiction. The judgment emphasizes that these rules, including Chapter VII of the Original Side Rules, must be read alongside the CPC. 3. Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure and Their Impact on the Institution of Suits: The amendments introduced by Act 46 of 1999, effective from 1st July 2002, added Sub-section (2) to Section 26, requiring facts in every plaint to be proved by affidavit. Corresponding amendments were made to Order VI Rule 15 and Order IV Rule 1, making the filing of an affidavit mandatory for the institution of suits. 4. Validity of the Suit Filed Without an Affidavit as Required by the Amended Code: The appellants filed a suit on 26th July 2002 without an affidavit, leading to a preliminary objection regarding the suit's validity. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that the suit was non-est due to non-compliance with the amended provisions. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that procedural defects are curable and do not automatically render a suit invalid. 5. Procedural Defects and Their Curability in the Context of the Institution of Suits: The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural rules are intended to further justice, not hinder it. The Court cited various decisions, including the Salem Advocate Bar Association case, to support the view that procedural omissions can be rectified and do not invalidate a suit. The Court held that the suit should be deemed to have been instituted on the original date of filing, despite the initial procedural defect. 6. Interpretation of Procedural Laws and Their Mandatory or Directory Nature: The judgment highlighted that procedural laws, including the amendments to the CPC, are directory rather than mandatory. The Court reiterated that procedural enactments should not be construed in a manner that prevents the Court from achieving justice. The Supreme Court concluded that the Division Bench's interpretation of the procedural requirements was too rigid and contrary to established legal principles. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench's order, and revived the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. The Court directed the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court to reconsider the appeal on merits. The judgment underscores the importance of a flexible approach to procedural laws to ensure justice is served.
|
