The Delhi High Court recently held that filing of an application under a wrong provision of law is a curable defect provided no prejudice is caused to the other party [Rajeev Shukla Vs Gopal Krishna Shukla]..Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that if the incorrect Section or provision of law does not mislead the court or the other party and no prejudice is caused, the mistake is treated as a “curable defect”.Hence, such an error will not be fatal to the case, the Court said.“Mentioning wrong Section of law in an application by a party is typically not considered “fatal” to the case, provided the substance of the application is clear and no prejudice is caused to the opposite party or the court,” the single-judge made it clear..The matter before the Court pertained to a suit for recovery of damages and permanent and mandatory injunction. The trial court had dismissed the petitioner's application seeking condonation of delay in filing written statement since it was filed under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and not under the Limitation Act.The trial court had also closed the petitioner’s right to file written statement and had struck off his defence. The petitioner then moved the High Court..Justice Dudeja said the courts generally prioritize substance over form, especially if the intention and relief sought by the party are apparent."The trial court should have focused on the content of the application rather than the technicalities of citing the incorrect Section. Procedural errors, including mentioning incorrect provision of law should not override the substantive justice," the High Court said..The single-judge further stressed that the Court has wide powers under Section 151 CPC to ensure that justice is served.The trial should have considered the application on the merits regardless of respective provision under which the same was filed, it said.Accordingly, the High Court directed the trial court to hear arguments afresh on the application of condonation of delay. .Advocates Jaskaran Singh, Anshul Gupta and Yash Singh appeared for the petitioner. Advocates DD Sharma and Prashant Yadav appeared for the respondent. [Read order]
