The Orissa High Court has issued a significant ruling aimed at curbing the proliferation of unnecessary legal battles. The court emphasized that judges must prevent the emergence of "a suit out of a suit," especially when parties are forced into repeated litigation due to a denial of a proper hearing.
Court Sets Aside Order Passed Without Hearing
In a judgment delivered on January 5, a bench led by Justice Ananda Chandra Behera set aside an order that had dismissed a petition without hearing the affected party. The court remitted the matter for a fresh adjudication, underscoring that substantial justice must prevail over procedural technicalities.
The case originated from a petition filed by Bharati Mohanty. She had challenged the dismissal of her petition in an Odisha Survey & Settlement (OSS) case from 2022. The dismissal order was passed on June 21, 2024, by the additional commissioner (additional revision court IV) in Bhubaneswar, citing her absence.
Duty of a "Good Judge" to Avoid Multiplicity of Litigation
After examining the challenged order, Justice Behera found it was indeed passed without granting the petitioner a hearing. The judge made a powerful observation on judicial responsibility.
Justice Behera stated that it is the duty of a "good judge" to make every effort for the final disposal of cases on their merits after giving all parties an opportunity to be heard. He noted this should be done "for no other reason, but only in order to avoid the multiplicity of litigations between the parties."
The court held that justice would be best served by setting aside the impugned order. It ruled that the dismissal of the 2022 case without hearing the petitioner could not be sustained.
Fresh Adjudication Ordered with Three-Month Deadline
The High Court issued specific directives for the case's progression:
- The order dated June 21, 2024, was quashed.
- The matter was remitted back to the additional commissioner for fresh consideration.
- The revision court must decide the case afresh as per law after giving due opportunity of hearing to all parties.
- The court fixed a three-month timeline for disposal of the case, starting from the date of the petitioner's appearance.
Bharati Mohanty has been directed to appear before the additional revision court on January 12 with a certified copy of the judgment to receive further directions.
Substantial Justice Must Trump Procedural Technicalities
In a key concluding remark, Justice Behera elaborated on the core legal principle applied. He stated that when "the law of technicalities and the courses of substantial justice are pitted against each other, the courses of substantial justice deserves to be preferred."
The judge warned that dismissing matters on procedural grounds often leads to avoidable litigation. This practice undermines the objective of timely justice, which he noted "ultimately concerns the welfare of the state."
This judgment serves as a crucial reminder to judicial authorities about the importance of hearing parties before passing orders. It aims to reduce the burden on courts and litigants by preventing avoidable cycles of litigation.
