Meghalaya High Court

Court may modify procedural orders to permit filing of counter affidavits for ends of justice.

Rofiqul Islam Mondal and Anr vs SOFIQUL ISLAM

Meghalaya High CourtJUDGMENT: March 25, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The applicants, impleaded as Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in the main writ petition [WP(C) No. 425 of 2022], approached the High Court seeking the modification of a procedural order

Source reference: p. 3

By an order dated November 20, 2023, the Court had closed the opportunity for these respondents to file their counter-affidavit

Source reference: p. 3

The applicants contended that the inability to file their response caused significant prejudice to their case

Source reference: p. 3

Consequently, they prayed for the reopening of the opportunity to file their counter-affidavit to ensure their defense was properly recorded

Source reference: p. 3
02

Issues

1. Whether the Court should exercise its discretion to modify a previous order closing the right to file a counter-affidavit in order to meet the ends of justice

Source reference: p. 3
03

Law Applied

The Court primarily relied upon the principle of "ends of justice" and the inherent power of the Court to regulate its own proceedings to ensure a fair adjudication

Source reference: p. 3

This principle mandates that procedural technicalities should not typically override the right of a party to be heard, especially when the absence of a defense would cause undue prejudice

Source reference: p. 3
04

Reasoning

The Court evaluated the applicants' claim of prejudice alongside the procedural history of the case

Source reference: p. 3

It observed that neither the original petitioner nor the other respondents offered any "strong opposition" to the prayer for modifying the previous order

Source reference: p. 3

The Court reasoned that for the "end of justice," it was necessary to allow the applicants to place their counter-affidavit on record to ensure a comprehensive hearing of the merits

Source reference: p. 3

Consequently, the Court found it appropriate to modify the restrictive nature of the previous order to facilitate the completion of pleadings

Source reference: p. 3
05

Holding

The Court allowed the application, answering the core issue in the affirmative

The Court held that the interest of justice outweighed the procedural lapse

Source reference: p. 3

It modified the prior order (noted as 10.07.2023 in the text) to read: “Filing of Counter Affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 is allowed”

Source reference: p. 3

The Court directed the applicants to file the said counter-affidavit definitely within the next fixed date and disposed of the petition

Source reference: p. 3
Meghalaya High Court

Original Court PDF

Rofiqul Islam Mondal and AnrvsSOFIQUL ISLAM

Meghalaya High Court · March 25, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment