Rigid Procedural Compliance Can’t Override Substantial Justice: Supreme Court Restores Appeal Dismissed for Technical Lapse

"Procedure is the handmaid of justice and not its mistress" —  In a significant judgment Supreme Court of India set aside an order of the Rajasthan High Court that had refused to restore a civil appeal dismissed for default on technical grounds. Supreme  Court exercised its discretionary and inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, emphasizing that rigid procedural compliance must not defeat the cause of substantial justice.

Delivering the order, a Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan held that while delay and procedural lapses should not be encouraged, courts must remain conscious of their larger duty to decide matters on merits, especially when the default is not deliberate.

“Inherent Powers Exist to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice” – Court Reiterates Authority Under Section 151 CPC

The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a long-standing land dispute between the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) and the heirs of Brigadier Maharaja Sawai Bhawani Singh. The High Court had originally dismissed JDA’s first appeal on 20 November 2023 due to non-appearance. A restoration application was allowed conditionally on 28 November 2024, requiring the JDA to deposit Rs.5,000 as cost within one week. However, the appellants failed to comply within the stipulated time, leading the High Court to decline restoration on 6 December 2024, terming the cost a “condition precedent.”

Despite depositing the cost belatedly on 10 January 2025, and filing a recall application under Section 151 CPC, the High Court refused to entertain it, criticizing the JDA’s conduct as negligent and not bona fide. The application was dismissed again on 21 April 2025. A Special Appeal before the Division Bench was also rejected, prompting the JDA to approach the Supreme Court.

The apex court, while acknowledging the appellants’ laxity, found the High Court’s refusal to restore the appeal unduly harsh. It observed:
“In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case… rigid adherence to procedural condition defeated substantial justice. Appeal deserved to be restored.”

Supreme Court Balances Equity: Slams Laxity, But Prevents Multiplicity of Litigation

Critically, the Supreme Court emphasized that denying restoration in such matters leads to unnecessary multiplicity of litigation and keeps long-pending disputes unresolved.

“The dispute has been pending for long and dismissal on a technical ground led to unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings. Matter should be decided on merits rather than non-suiting parties for procedural lapses,” the Court said in paragraphs 9 to 11 of its decision.

However, the Court did not spare the JDA from consequences. Expressing displeasure over the delay, the Bench observed: “This matter should not have travelled up to the highest Court of this country. It is the laxity on the part of the appellants that the other side has been dragged all the way to the Supreme Court.”

To balance equities and deter such conduct, the Court imposed costs of Rs.50,000/-, to be deposited by the appellants with the Supreme Court Middle Income Legal Aid Society within two weeks.

High Court Directed to Expedite Disposal: “No More Delays”

Recognizing the need for swift resolution, the Supreme Court restored the appeal to the High Court's original file and directed it to be heard and decided within four weeks from the date of its order. Liberty was granted to the respondents to file a counter affidavit.

The decision underscores the judiciary’s obligation to balance procedural discipline with the constitutional goal of access to justice. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed the principle that “procedure is a means to an end, not an end in itself.”

Date of Decision: 9th January, 2026