NAVNITLAL L KHAKHKHAR Vs. HASMUKHLAL G SOLANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. N. A. Acharya appears and waives service of Rule. In this Revision Application the petitioner challenges the order of the trial Court rejecting the petitioners application for restoration and the order of the lower appellate Court confirming the said order. Miss V. P. Shah learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the two Courts below were not justified in rejecting the restoration application of the present petitioner on the ground that the Doctor who had issued certificate was not examined. According to Miss Shah the petitioner was unable to remain present in the trial Court on the day on which ex parte decree was passed because the petitioners mother had become seriously in at Rajkot and he had to go there. After going there he had himself become in. On coming back to Ahmedabad he came to know about the ex parte decree and promptly filed application to set aside the ex parte decree. Miss Shah urged that ordinarily the contents of the medical certificate should be accepted as correct unless the other side challenge its veracity. She therefore submitted that this is a fit case where the ex parte decree should be set aside and the matter be heard and disposed of on merits.

(2.) Mr. N. A. Acharya learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the two Courts below were justified in rejecting the restoration application on the ground that the Doctor who issued the certificate was not examined. According to him there is no reliable evidence on record to show that the contents of the medical certificate were correct. He therefore submits that the present petition should be rejected and the concurrent decision of the two Courts should be upheld.

(3.) Although it is a common knowledge that the certificates issued by the medical practitioners are often untrue and that such certificates are issued for the mere asking and on the payment of nominal charges yet it would not be correct to say that no medical certificate can be relied upon unless the Doctor who has issued it is examined. There cannot be a general presumption that all medical certificates are false. The contents thereof would be required to be proved only if the other side challenges its veracity. When a party challenges the veracity of a medical certificate the party producing the certificate has to prove the Correctness of the statements made therein. in absence of any challenge by the other side the medical certificate should be accepted as correct unless the Court feels that its contents are on the face of it false or atleast it is doubtful. While it is true that there has to be a convincing proof about the legitimate reason for a party to remain absent at the hearing of the matter the Court must not over look the important consideration that the cases before the Court should be decided as far as possible on merits and not on mere technicalities. The primary function of a Court is to do substantial justice between the parties as far as it is humanly possible. This can be more effectively done by hearing the parties and disposing of the matter on merits. The technicalities often not only short-circuit the judicial process but also lead to substantial injustice and at times very gross injustice. Hence the Courts must look at the question of doing substantial justice in a wider perspective rather than allow itself to be carried away by technicalities or the conduct of a party.