CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has underlined that courts must prioritise substantial justice over technicalities and avoid multiplicity of litigation, while setting aside an order passed without hearing the affected party.
Emphasising that “a suit should not be allowed to grow out of a suit”, the court held that denying a fair opportunity of hearing defeats the very purpose of justice.
A single judge bench of Justice Ananda Chandra Behera passed the order on January 5 while disposing of a petition filed by Bharati Mohanty, who had challenged the dismissal of her plea in a Odisha Survey & Settlement (OSS) Case of 2022 involving land dispute by the additional commissioner’s revision court in Bhubaneswar. It was dismissed on June 21, 2024, reportedly due to the absence of the petitioner.
On examining the impugned order and finding that it was indeed passed without hearing the petitioner, Justice Behera emphasised that it is the duty of a “good Judge” to endeavour for final disposal of cases on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to all parties, not merely as a procedural formality but to prevent unnecessary and repetitive litigation.
Justice Behera held that the ends of justice would be best served by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back for fresh adjudication.
Accordingly, he quashed the June 21, 2024 order and remanded the OSS case of 2022 to the additional commissioner revision court in Bhubaneswar, with a direction to decide the matter afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to all parties.
The judge directed that the revision case be disposed of in accordance with law within three months from the date of the petitioner’s appearance, asking Mohanty to appear before the concerned revision court on January 12, along with a certified copy of the court’s judgment, to receive further directions.
Justice Behera further observed that when technicalities conflict with substantial justice, the latter must prevail. Dismissing cases on technical grounds without hearing parties often leads to further rounds of litigation, burdening both the judiciary and litigants, and adversely affecting the welfare of the state.