SAVITRI DEVI Vs. MAYA DEVI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate case where the petitioner has been driven to this Court only because of hypertechnical approach, adopted by the learned Court below in dismissing the application for setting aside an order of dismissal in default.

(2.) It appears that the civil suit, filed by the petitioner for permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for the mandatory injunction, came to be listed before the Court below on 23.12.2014 when it was called thrice in pre-lunch session. Thereafter, since none appeared on behalf of the parties, the suit was ordered to be dismissed in default. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the order, dated 23.12.2014, but the same was dismissed by recording the following reason:-

(3.) Adverting to the merits of the case, it is shocking that the application for restoration came to be dismissed only on the ground that the copy of the order, dated 23.12.2015 and also the case number had not been mentioned in the application. The learned Court below has failed to take into consideration that quite often in the sub divisions there are shortcomings in the pleadings, as such pleadings are not to be construed strictly; the Court has to look into only the substance of the pleadings to render substantial justice. It is more than settled that the pleadings in the mofussil sub division are not strictly construed as pleadings in the High Court and reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Badat and Company, Bombay Vs. East India Trading Company, 1964 AIR(SC) 538 and Des Raj and others Vs. Bhagat Ram (dead) by LRs. and others, 2007 9 SCC 641.