Courts are supposed to decide cases on merits and not on technicalities: High Court of Uttarakhand.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ON THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI WRIT PETITIONNo. 8021 Mohd. Yunus. ...Petitioner By Mr. T.P.S. Takuli Advocate) Sri Naveen Jha. By Mr. Siddhartha Sah Advocate) ...Respondent Respondent sought release of a shop by filing an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 172 in which petitioner is the respondent. The said application is registered as Rent Control Case No. 118 before Prescribed Authority Civil Judge Senior Division) Nainital. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 20.03.2021 whereby adjournment application moved on his behalf was rejected and his opportunity for filing objection was also closed on the ground that adequate time has already been given to the petitioner for filing objection. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to fever petitioner’s counsel could not file objection to the release application within given time. In support of this contention learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition which indicates that petitioner’s counsel was vaccinated for COVID 19 on 16.03.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner gives behalf of his client that objection to the release application shall be filed positively within one week from today. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that despite seven opportunities granted to him petitioner did not file his objection. Thus according to him this is a delaying tactics adopted by the petitioner who is a tenant in the shop in question. Be that as it may the fact remains that Courts are supposed to decide cases on merits and not on technicalities. Liberal approach has to be adopted in such matters to do complete justice between the parties particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & another Vs. Shamlal Murari & another reported in 1 SCC 719 in paragraph no. 8 has held as follows: ‘Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the hand maid and not the mistress a lubricant not a resistant in the administration of justice. Where the non compliance though procedural will thwart fair hearing or prejudice doing of justice to parties the rule is mandatory. But grammar apart if the breach can be corrected without injury to a just disposal of the case the Court should not enthrone a regulatory requirement into a dominant desideratum. After all Courts are to do justice not to wreck this end product on technicalities.’ Thus having facts & circumstances of the case the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.03.2021 is set aside. Petitioner shall be at liberty to file objection to release application within ten days today subject to payment of cost of ` 10 000 to the respondent within one week. As the release application was filed in the year 2018 therefore learned Prescribed Authority is requested to make every endeavor to hear and decide Rent Control Case No. 118 as early as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Let a certified copy of this order be issued within 24 hours. 

Summary: The liberal approach has to be adopted in such matters to do complete justice between the parties, particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs. A single Judge bench comprising Hon’ble justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari, in the matter of Mohd. Yunus Vs. Sri Naveen Jha (WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 806 of 2021). In the present case, the respondent had sought the release of a shop by filing an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, in which the petitioner is the respondent. The petitioner was aggrieved by the order, whereby the adjournment application moved on his behalf was rejected and his opportunity for filing objection was also closed on the ground that adequate time has already been given to the petitioner for filing the objection. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to fever, the petitioner’s counsel could not file an objection to the release application within the given time. In support, they referred to the writ petition, which indicated that the petitioner’s counsel was vaccinated for COVID-19. The counsel also gave an undertaking that objection to the release application shall be filed positively within one week. The counsel for the respondent contested that the petitioner is trying to delay, as several opportunities were granted to him, but he did not file his objection. The court observed- “Courts are supposed to decide cases on merits and not on technicalities. The liberal approach has to be adopted in such matters to do complete justice between the parties, particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs.”  It also referred to the Supreme Court’s statement in the case of the State of Punjab &amp; another Vs. Shamlal Murari &amp; another, reported in (1976) 1 SCC 719, where it stated that “Courts are to do justice, not to wreck this end product on technicalities.” Thereby the writ petition was allowed and the petitioner was given liberty to file an objection to 3 the release application within ten days from today, subject to payment of the cost of ` 10,000/- to the respondent within one week.