When court should not take hyper technical rigid view which will result in denial of justice to litigant?

 On aforesaid point, both the sides placed
reliance on the case reported as (1986) 2 SCC 424
(Konkan Trading Company v. Suresh Govind Kamat). In
this case the Apex Court has considered provisions of both
Order 23 Rule 1 and Section 148 of the Civil Procedure
Code. The Apex Court has laid down that even if the order
of payment of cost is a condition precedent for filing fresh
suit, the defect, if any, can be cured by depositing in the
Court the cost within reasonable time and the time can be
fixed by the Court before which the second suit is filed.
The Apex Court has observed that there is no warrant for
taking a hyper technical rigid view which may result in
denying to a person access to justice and deprive him of
his legal rights. It is observed that when it is possible to

take a liberal view which promotes the ends of justice,
such liberal view needs to be taken in such matters. In
view of the relevant facts of the present matter which are
already quoted, this Court holds that on this technical
point present appeal cannot be allowed and the suit filedfor relief of partition cannot be treated as not tenable. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Second Appeal No. 1132 of 2004
 Rajaram Mahadu Dahatonde

Versus
Babu Mahadu Dahatonde,

 CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J.

 DATE : 29th OCTOBER 2015
Citation; 2016(2) ALLMR326

Print Page