Litigants Must Not Suffer for Clerical Errors Committed by the Court: Bombay High Court Allows Delayed Defence in Sibling Defamation Suit

“Rejection of Written Statement Based on Court Registry’s Mistake Is Legally Unsustainable”— In a significant ruling that upholds the right to defend in a defamation suit between siblings, the Bombay High Court set aside a Trial Court’s order that had refused to accept a delayed written statement, holding that the error of the court office cannot be visited upon a litigant. The Court ruled that "clerical mistakes by court staff must not result in denial of justice" and exercised its inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to protect the rights of the defendant.

The case—Rangamma Soundappa Chetty v. Palaniswamy Obuli Chetty—involved a defamation suit filed by a brother against his sister amid escalating family property disputes. The defendant had sought to file her written statement belatedly, but the Trial Court rejected her application, citing her alleged prior appearance through an advocate and presumed service of summons. The High Court found both grounds to be legally flawed and factually unsupported.

“The conclusion drawn by the Trial Court was based on the confusion which arose because of an error on the part of the office of the City Civil Court. It is settled law that parties should not suffer for the mistakes of the court administration.”

High Court Slams Trial Court for Relying on Clerical Mistake to Reject Written Statement

The Trial Court had heavily relied on the fact that advocate Ms. Sapna Rachure had appeared in the proceedings, thereby presuming that the defendant was aware of the suit. However, after a detailed factual analysis, Justice Jitendra Jain categorically rejected this presumption:

“Ms. Sapna Rachure was never engaged by the defendant in the present matter. Her name was wrongly recorded due to a clerical error carried forward from unrelated litigation.”

The Court took note of multiple connected suits involving the same parties, and clarified that the court registry had mistakenly carried forward the name of the advocate due to a ‘tag-down’ system error, which was later acknowledged and rectified in the Roznama.

“The main basis of the Trial Court’s order is a factual error caused by the registry. This reasoning is clearly unsustainable.”

Presumption of Service Cannot Be Based on Disputed Signature: Verification Is Mandatory

Another pillar of the Trial Court’s reasoning was the bailiff’s report, which claimed that summons had been served on the defendant. The High Court, however, found a prima facie mismatch between the signature on the service record and the known signature of the defendant:

“It cannot be accepted prima facie that the signature dated 28 October 2009 on the Sheriff’s record is that of the defendant. The authenticity of service remains seriously disputed.”

The Court observed that a perjury application is pending before the Trial Court concerning falsification of service and directed the lower court to pursue that proceeding to its logical conclusion, including criminal consequences if fraud is established.

In Defamation Suits, Right to Defend Is Essential: Written Statement Must Be Taken on Record

Recognising the serious implications of a defamation suit, the High Court stressed the importance of a fair opportunity to defend, particularly in adversarial civil proceedings.

“A suit for defamation has serious consequences on the reputation of both parties. Therefore, the defendant must be given adequate opportunity to file her written statement.”

The Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the Trial Court’s order and directed that the written statement be filed within eight weeks, without imposing any costs.

“This is not a case where the delay was caused by negligence or intentional default. It arose entirely out of an institutional clerical lapse. No cost is warranted.”

High Court Makes Emotional Appeal: “Siblings Should Learn to Give Up Rather Than Give into Litigation”

In a rare and poignant judicial reflection, Justice Jain lamented the increasing trend of litigation between siblings over property and reputation. The Court invoked the cultural significance of Raksha Bandhan and Bhaubeej, festivals that symbolize the unbreakable bond between brother and sister:

“Sadly, siblings today don’t stand together, but against each other in a court of law.”

Calling the dispute a “counterblast” fuelled by emotional estrangement, the Court observed:

“The root cause of this broken sibling relationship is greed, ego, and the desire for materialistic life, rather than the pursuit of peace and harmony.”

“The bond between a brother and sister is sometimes tightly woven, sometimes loosely held, but never broken.”

The judgment closed with a heartfelt suggestion that the parties should resolve their disputes amicably, given their advanced age and the emotional cost of continued litigation.

Justice Must Prevail Over Technical Mistakes

The ruling in Rangamma Soundappa Chetty v. Palaniswamy Obuli Chetty stands as a reaffirmation of the principle that procedural fairness cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative mistakes. The Bombay High Court has made it clear that clerical errors by the court office cannot be the basis to deny a litigant their right to defend, especially in cases with serious reputational and emotional stakes.

“When a court’s own systems contribute to procedural confusion, it becomes the duty of the court to undo the injustice caused thereby.”

This judgment will likely serve as a precedent in future cases involving condonation of delay, inherent powers under Section 151 CPC, and administrative mistakes affecting litigants’ rights.

Date of Decision: 19 December 2025