Orissa HC: Curb multiple litigations, prioritise substantial justice

Cuttack: Orissa high court has underscored the need to curb multiple litigations, observing that courts should not permit “a suit out of a suit” to arise, particularly when denial of hearing forces parties into repeated legal battles.Holding that substantial justice must prevail over technicalities, the HC set aside an order passed without hearing the affected party and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication.A bench of Justice Ananda Chandra Behera delivered the judgment on Jan 5 while disposing of a petition filed by Bharati Mohanty. She had challenged the dismissal of her petition in a Odisha Survey & Settlement (OSS) case of 2022, involving land litigation on June 21, 2024, by the additional commissioner (additional revision court IV) in Bhubaneswar, citing her absence.After perusing the impugned order, the court found that it had indeed been passed without hearing the petitioner. Justice Behera observed that it is the duty of a “good judge” to make every endeavour for final disposal of cases on merit after giving parties an opportunity of being heard, “for no other reason, but only in order to avoid the multiplicity of litigations between the parties”.Holding that justice would be best served by setting aside the impugned order, Justice Behera ruled that the dismissal of the 2022 case without hearing the petitioner could not be sustained and directed that the matter be remitted back to the additional commissioner for fresh consideration.

Accordingly, the June 21, 2024 order was quashed, and the revision court was directed to 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 from the date of the petitioner’s appearance.Mohanty has been directed to appear before the additional revision court on Jan 12 with a certified copy of the judgment, to receive further directions.Justice Behera further said 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”. “Dismissing matters on procedural grounds often leads to avoidable litigation and undermines the objective of timely justice, which ultimately concerns the welfare of the state,” he observed.