Mentioning Wrong Section Of Law In Application Not Fatal If Its Substance Is Clear & No Prejudice Caused To Opposite Party Or Court: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court observed that an Application by a party is typically not considered ‘fatal’ to the case if its substance is clear and no prejudice is caused to the opposite party or the Court.
The Court observed thus in a Petition filed by a son being the Defendant in a Suit for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction and Recovery of Damages filed by his father against him.
A Single Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja held, “It is apparent that application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner has been dismissed merely on the ground that it was filed under Section 151 CPC and not under the Limitation Act, 1963. The trial court has not addressed the application on merits. Mentioning the wrong Section of law in an application by a party is typically not considered “fatal” to the case, provided the substance of the application is clear and no prejudice is caused to the opposite party or the court. The courts generally prioritize substance over form, especially if the intention and relief sought by the party are apparent.”
Advocate Jaskaran Singh represented the Petitioner while Advocate D.D. Sharma represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts -
The Petitioner was the son of the Respondent and was a Defendant in the Suit for Permanent & Mandatory Injunction and Recovery of Damages filed by the Respondent against him. Summons for Settlement of Issues were sent to the Petitioner and he sought time to file Written Statement before the Court. Thereafter, Written Statement along with an Application for condonation of delay was filed digitally in 2020 and in 2021, an amended one was filed. The Trial Court dismissed the Application for condonation of delay and then the Respondent filed an Application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), seeking striking off the defence.
The aforesaid Application was allowed and the Written Statement along with amended Written Statement were taken of the record. It was submitted by the Petitioner’s counsel that due to Covid-19 Lockdown, the Written Statement could not be filed in March 2020 as the Courts were shut due to Covid restrictions. It was further argued that the Trial Court dismissed the Application for condonation of delay merely on technical ground. The Petitioner was, therefore, before the High Court challenging the Trial Court’s Order which had dismissed his Application.
The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “If incorrect Section does not mislead the court or the other party and no prejudice is caused, the mistake is treated as a “curable defect”. The trial court should have focussed on the content of the application rather than the technicalities of citing the incorrect Section. Procedural errors, including mentioning incorrect provision of law should not override the substantive justice.”
The Court added that the Court has enough powers under Section 151 CPC to ensure that justice is served. It said that the Trial Court underscored that it is a substance of the Application that matters and not a form or the specific provision and should have considered the Application on the merits regardless of respective provision under which the same was filed.
“Thus viewed, the impugned order dated 21.07.2022, passed by the trial court in a cursory manner, cannot be sustained, and is thereby set aside. The order dated 01.07.2023 passed in consequence to the dismissal of the application of condonation of delay also consequently goes”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Petition, set aside the impugned Order, and directed the Trial Court to hear arguments afresh on the Petitioner’s Application for condonation of delay.
Cause Title- Rajeev Shukla v. Gopal Krishna Shukla (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:12)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Jaskaran Singh, Anshul Gupta, and Yash Singh.
Respondent: Advocates D.D. Sharma and Prashant Yadav.
