Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, held that mentioning of a wrong section by a party in its application is typically not ‘fatal’ if the substance of the application is clear and no prejudice is caused to the court or the other party. 

The bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja held, “The courts generally prioritize substance over form, especially if the intention and relief sought by the party are apparent. If incorrect Section does not mislead the court or the other party and no prejudice is caused, the mistake is treated as a “curable defect”. 

The petitioner, the son of the respondent and the defendant in a suit for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction and Recovery of Damages received summons on 14.12.2019 and appeared before the court on 29.01.2020, seeking time to submit a written statement.  

The petitioner digitally filed the written statement and an application for condonation of delay on 22.09.2020 and later submitted an amended statement in November 2021. The trial court dismissed the condonation application on 21.07.2022. 

Through Advocate Jaskaran Singh, the petitioner further claimed that the condonation application was dismissed on technical grounds, while the respondent’s application under Section 151 CPC to strike off the defense was allowed, despite it being incorrectly filed under that provision.  

The court noted that the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner was dismissed solely because it was submitted under Section 151 of the CPC rather than under the Limitation Act, 1963. The court observed that the trial court did not examine the application on its merits. 

The court further noted that typically, citing an incorrect section in an application is not considered "fatal" to the case if the substance of the application was clear and caused no prejudice to the opposing party or the court. The court emphasized that Courts generally prioritize substance over form, particularly when the party’s intention and the relief sought were apparent. 

Additionally, the court observed that if an incorrect provision did not mislead the court or the opposing party and caused no prejudice, such an error was regarded as a "curable defect." The trial court should have focused on the content of the application rather than the technicality of citing an incorrect provision, the court added. Procedural errors, including referencing the wrong legal section, should not outweigh the importance of substantive justice. 

Furthermore, the court underscored that the substance of the application, rather than its form or the provision cited, was crucial, and the trial court ought to have considered the application on its merits regardless of the cited provision.

Given this, the court held that the impugned order dated 21.07.2022, passed by the trial court in a cursory manner, could not be upheld and was accordingly set aside. Consequently, the order dated 01.07.2023, issued as a result of dismissing the application for condonation of delay, was also set aside. 

The court further directed the trial court to rehear the arguments on the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay and issue a reasoned order based on the merits of the application. 

For Petitioner: Advocates Jaskaran Singh, Anshul Gupta and Yash Singh
For Respondent: Advocates D.D. Sharma and Prashant Yadav
Case Title: Rajeev Shukla v Gopal Krishna Shukla (2025:DHC:12)