HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD Vs. ICI INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter is placed at my instance and not at the instance of any of the parties. I have done so taking what might well be an unusual liberty, in that I propose today to suo motu review a portion of my own order of 27th January 2017. That order dealt with a Leave Petition under Clause XII of the Letters Patent. It also dealt with a question of return of the plaint under Order VII rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. I am not today addressing the issue under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, i.e., whether leave can be obtained ex post facto. The only question that I do wish to address is whether the High Court on its Original Side can ever direct return of a plaint.

(2.) Paragraphs 3 to 9 of that order dealt with this aspect. I took the view that since Order 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") excluded the application of Order VII Rule 10, therefore, a previous order dated 19th October 2015 returning a plaint was per incurium.

(3.) I was wrong. It is for this reason that I have listed the matter today. It is sometimes said that a 'foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds'. That might be true. But an obstinate adherence to a demonstrably incorrect position in law, even or, worse, especially if that pronouncement is one's own, is perhaps infinitely worse, for it would result in the perpetuation of wrong law.