At Times, Deciding A Matter Purely On Technicalities Cannot Be A Ground To Deprive Legitimate Right Of Citizen: Tripura High Court
The Tripura High Court has held that at times, deciding a matter purely on technicalities cannot be a ground to deprive the legitimate right of a citizen when he/she is before the Court of law for his/her rights.
A Civil Revision Petition (CRP) was filed by the petitioners for restoring the property which was damaged by the defendant/deceased by digging sand (excavation) from the open land and by changing the nature of the property. The CRP was disposed of by the High Court and by application, review of the same was sought for, as a result of which the court allowed the same and recalled the order. The CRP was, therefore, reopened and was heard.
A Single Bench of Justice T. Amarnath Goud observed, “During the course of the argument, Mr. Roy Barman, learned Sr. counsel upon instruction submitted that after lifting the attachment, the case was scheduled to be listed before the Court below on 30th of August 2022, but, for the pendency of the present CRP in the High Court, the same is pending on the file of the Trial Court. Since the major issue of deciding the right, title, and interest is pending before the Court below, passing an order of attachment or lifting the attachment in no way would prejudice the rights of the decree-holder. At times, deciding a matter purely on technicalities to say that the pleading do not disclose any reasons cannot be a ground to deprive the legitimate right of a citizen when the citizen is before the Court of law for his rights. His rights are to be protected under Constitution of India and the same needs to be given high pedestal in order to meet the ends of justice.”
Senior Advocate P. Roy Barman with Advocate S. Bhattacharjee appeared for the petitioners/decree holders while none appeared for the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The petitioners before the court were plaintiffs who filed a suit against the sole defendant (deceased) for restoring the property damaged by the defendant by digging sand (excavation) from the open land and by changing the nature of the property. The plaintiffs also sought claim for such damages and then the decree holder/plaintiff filed an execution proceeding under Order XXI Rule-11 of the CPC seeking attachment of the property of the defendants. The subordinate court passed an interim order of attachment and the third parties to the suit filed an application under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC before the Execution Court and apart from the other points contended that notices were not served and they were affected parties having rights, title, and interest upon the property under attachment.
The judgment-debtor-deceased pendente lite was not the owner but was the son of original owner. The said court after hearing both sides, passed an order lifting the attachment which was passed earlier and further directed the matter to be listed next to proceed with the matter. Aggrieved by the said order of lifting the attachment, the CRP was filed by the decree holder.
The High Court in view of the above facts said, “In the light of the submission made on behalf of the third party claimants that they are the legal heirs of the original owners Rahij uddin, there cannot be any order against their property as the original owner late Rahij uddin and also they are not party to the suit and further the defendant/Judgment debtor is not the sole owner of the said property.”
The Court further noted that with regard to deciding the third party claim who is not party to the suit, their rights, title, and interest need to be examined by giving them a fair opportunity, otherwise, it will amount to a violation of principles of natural justice and also would affect their Right to Property as construed under Article 300A of the Constitution.
“… since the matter requires adjudication under Order XXI Rule 58, 97 to 100 of CPC, if an application is made by the stranger, without filing a fresh suit for declaration of right, title and interest, and if the Court decide the same, it will amount to passing of a decree. Since the third parties are not before this Court and since the matter is pending before the Trial Court, it is not for this Court to go and decide upon the other aspects and thus confines the case only to the extent of issues involved in the CRP i.e., with regard to the lifting of the attachment”, held the Court.
The Court, therefore, directed the subordinate court to give an opportunity to the third parties to the suit and said that if any application is filed, the same be decided as per procedure by giving an opportunity to all concerned.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the CRP.
Cause Title- Sahajada Choudhury & Ors. v. Mamataj Begam & Ors.
