- The Supreme Court stated that a litigant's substantive rights should not be overturned due to a procedural error that can be corrected.
- In this instance, despite the fact that two different decrees were prepared, two lawsuits (one filed in 1989 and the other in 1993) were tried concurrently and resolved (in 2008) by a single judgement.
- In 2008, the defendant appealed both of the orders and went to the Uttarakhand High Court. He also preferred a request (CLMA) for authorization to bring a single appeal against both the common decision and two distinct decrees.
- The High Court accepted the first appeal (in 2008), and by the same ruling, two weeks were given to file CLMA objections and a further two weeks to file rejoinder.
- It was also instructed to list the application following the expiration of the specified time.
- Ten years later (in 2018), at the time of the appeal's hearing, the High Court accepted the preliminary objection questioning the maintainability of a single initial appeal without ruling on the case's merits.
- The appeal was dismissed with the Court holding that one appeal is not maintainable and barred by the principle of res judicata. The Court stated that the case is limited to the question of the applicability of the principle of res judicata and, taking into consideration the material placed and the contentions raised by both parties, the appeal was dismissed.
- The appellant argued in his appeal before the Supreme Court that the impugned order did not address his CLMA request for authorization to file a joint appeal against a common judgement and two decrees, despite the fact that concerns were raised when the appeal was admitted and notice was given.
- The respondent, on the other hand, argued that since the day of notice in the first appeal, a challenge to the filing of just one appeal had been made, and the appellant had still not corrected the alleged error.
- The bench read the contested judgement and noted that there isn't even a single statement that the requested authorization to file one appeal cannot be granted.
- The court noted that the appellant suffered substantial harm as a result of the CLMA application's non-adjudication and the High Court's upholding of its preliminary objection to one appeal's non-maintainability.
- In order to address the CLMA before addressing the preliminary objection about the maintainability of one appeal, the court remanded the case to the High Court.
"Loved reading this piece by Twinkle Madaan?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
