Case Law Details
Ramnath Exports Pvt Ltd Vs Vinita Mehta (Supreme Court of India)
It is a trite law that the procedural defect may fall within the purview of irregularity and capable of being cured, but it should not be allowed to defeat the substantive right accrued to the litigant without affording reasonable opportunity.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 04.07.2018, passed by High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in First Appeal 50 of 2008, preferred by appellant herein against the ‘common judgment’ dated 16.04.2008 passed by Trial Court in Suit No.411 of 1989 (filed by respondents herein joining appellant as defendant) and Suit No.4 19 of 1993 (filed by appellant herein joining respondents as defendant). In Suit No.411 of 1989, respondents sought ‘permanent injunction’ against appellant restraining it from interfering in the right of use of concerned passage or causing any interference or putting any obstruction in the usage of the said passage and not to make any septic tank, soakage pit or raise any other construction. The respondents also prayed for grant of ‘mandatory injunction’ against the appellant, making prayer to remove and demolish the walls on the concerned passage and restoring the passage to its original width of 13 ft. and filling up the ditch near the gate of plaintiff no.2 (respondent no.2 herein). In Suit No.419 of 1993, appellant herein prayed for ‘permanent injunction’ restraining the respondents/defendants from providing or creating any passage through the property of appellant after demolishing the existing passage. Since both the suits involved grievances pertaining to the passage of the same land, therefore by consent order dated 18.08.2006 both were consolidated. The common issues were framed by Trial Court to facilitate disposal of both suits by same evidence. Consequently, the aforesaid consolidated suits were disposed off by the Trial Court by a common judgment dated 16.04.2008, though two separate decrees were drawn on 30.04.2008. The Suit No.411 of 1989 was partly decreed in favour of plaintiff no. 2 (respondent no.2 herein), whereas Suit No.4 19 of 1993 was dismissed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
