The Madras High Court has emphasized that the judicial process should not only identify a litigant’s issues but also offer a viable remedy. This perspective was highlighted in the case of Muthulakshmi v. Raju, as discussed by a Division Bench comprising Justices N Anand Venkatesh and KK Ramakrishnan.
The Bench articulated that courts must consider the human aspects of litigation, ensuring that procedural laws do not become tools that delay, dilute, or deny substantive justice. The Justices remarked, “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.”
In the context of a commercial appeal linked to a prolonged partnership dispute, the Court observed that the appellant had navigated through numerous civil and arbitration processes without the substantive issues being resolved on their merits. The Bench cautioned against terminating proceedings on flawed legal premises without addressing the actual dispute, thereby compelling litigants to seek alternative remedies that may not be statutorily relevant.
Drawing upon Justice VR Krishna Iyer’s characterization of litigants as “legal patients suffering from injustices seeking healing for their wounds,” the High Court underscored the necessity for courts to provide effective solutions rather than entangle litigants in procedural complexities. The Court pointed to Supreme Court precedents that support the invocation of justice, equity, and good conscience in instances where existing laws do not suffice, allowing courts to craft fair resolutions.
The Court noted that procedural delays and repeated litigations have burdened an elderly appellant, prolonging the quest for justice unduly. The Justices remarked, “The cumulative weight of these procedural vicissitudes and the continuing litigation has prolonged her struggle far beyond what justice should ordinarily demand.”
Ultimately, the High Court held that the case should not be limited to procedural technicalities but should account for the human dimension of litigation. “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,” stated the Bench.
The High Court allowed the commercial appeal with costs and overturned the trial court’s decision. Senior Advocate V Raghavachari, guided by Advocate R Suriya Narayanan, represented the appellant. The respondent was represented by Senior Advocate S Meenakshi Sundaram, with Advocate P Ganapathi Subramanian providing instruction.
