SAHARBAN BEEVI Vs. S. MUMTAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Procedures or Rules are the handmaids of justice and not the mistress of justice, ruled the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (General Instrument Company..Vs..Union of India, 2008 11 SCC 775). Whenever an application is filed, the inherent temptation of the Registry / filing section is to raise the following question; under which provision of law, the application has been filed (as the Section/Provision under which the petition is filed serves as the lighthouse for the case). Equally, whenever an application is returned, raising the query as to the Provision of law, the parties who filed the application, retort raising the question where is the prohibition to file it or under which provision the petition has been returned? This sort of the syndrome of "return - representation" taking away the time and energy of the litigant and the Court has facilitate the creation of the climate of dissociation instead of association. Whenever an application is filed, the dichotomy arising in the mind of the Court is whether the petition should be entertained unless expressly prohibited or the petition should not be entertained unless expressly provided for. This Civil Revision Petition also raises a similar question.

(2.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the first defendant aggrieved over the dismissal of the petition (on the technical ground that wrong provision of law has been quoted) filed under O.26 R. 10 C.P.C., for appointment of Commissioner to send Ex. A.1 - Agreement of sale for the opinion of the Handwriting Expert opinion.

(3.) Even assuming that no provision of law has been quoted or wrong provision of Law is quoted, what is the duty and responsibility of the Court under such circumstances is the issue to be considered.