In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has endorsed the Calcutta High Court’s decision to allow a defendant to file a written statement 17 years after the initial filing deadline. The Court’s intervention highlights a major procedural blunder that contributed to the extensive delay.
The Supreme Court’s ruling came in response to a case where confusion caused by the High Court’s Registry led to the suit being mistakenly listed as disposed of as far back as March 2000. The defendant, under the erroneous impression that the case had been resolved, did not submit a written statement until the case was unexpectedly revived in January 2017.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized that procedural delays not attributable to the defendant should not obstruct substantive justice. “Procedural technicalities must yield to the pursuit of justice,” the Court declared, underscoring that legal procedures exist to serve justice, not to deny it.
The Calcutta High Court initially rejected the defendant’s request to file the statement due to the delay, but the Division Bench later overturned this decision. It was found that the defendant had been misled by the official case status, which falsely indicated that the case was closed.
The Supreme Court concurred with this assessment, finding that the confusion created by the High Court’s Registry was a critical factor in the delay. “The evidence shows that the suit was incorrectly recorded as disposed of, which misled the respondent. Thus, dismissing the written statement would be unjust,” the Court stated.
With this ruling, the appeal challenging the High Court’s decision was dismissed, affirming that the written statement could be admitted despite the substantial delay caused by administrative errors.
