The judicial process is meant not merely to identify a litigant’s “wound” but also to provide a remedy for it, the Madras High Court recently observed. [Muthulakshmi v. Raju].A Division Bench of Justices N Anand Venkatesh and KK Ramakrishnan said that courts must keep in mind the human dimension of litigation and ensure that procedural law does not become a means to postpone, dilute or ultimately deny substantive justice."The judicial process is intended not merely to identify the existence of a wound but also to provide the legally permissible remedy for its redressal."The Bench added that courts exist to render substantive justice and that procedural complexities cannot be allowed to defeat lawful rights..The Court was dealing with a commercial appeal arising from a prolonged partnership dispute in which the litigant had moved through multiple civil and arbitration proceedings without her substantive claims being adjudicated on merits.Where proceedings are terminated on an erroneous legal premise without deciding the actual controversy, merely directing the litigant to pursue another remedy, particularly one which is not statutorily applicable, would not advance the cause of justice, the Bench said.Referring to Justice VR Krishna Iyer's observation that “litigants are legal patients suffering from injustices seeking healing for their wounds”, the High Court stressed that courts must ultimately provide effective redress rather than leave litigants trapped in procedural loops..It referred to Supreme Court precedent recognising that where the existing statutory framework does not readily provide a just answer, courts may resort to principles of justice, equity and good conscience to fairly resolve disputes.The Court noted that equity could supplement the law in appropriate cases and enable courts to craft relief that is both legally sustainable and just.The Bench said that behind procedural complications, interlocutory delays and successive rounds of litigation failed an elderly litigant who had been seeking adjudication of her claimed rights for years.“The cumulative weight of these procedural vicissitudes and the continuing litigation has prolonged her struggle far beyond what justice should ordinarily demand,” the Court observed..It consequently said that the case could not be viewed solely through the prism of procedural technicalities.“This Court must, therefore, bear in mind the human dimension of the litigation and ensure that procedural law does not become an instrument by which substantive justice is postponed, diluted, or ultimately denied,” the Bench said.The High Court ultimately allowed the commercial appeal with costs and set aside the trial court judgment..The appellant was represented by Senior Advocate V Raghavachari, instructed by Advocate R Suriya Narayanan..The respondent was reprsented by Senior Advocate S Meenakshi Sundaram, instructed by Advocate P Ganapathi Subramanian..[Read Judgment]
