Courts should prioritize merits over hyper-technicalities when medical incapacity causes delays in depositing costs.

The appellant’s writ petition [WP(C) No. 2149/2020] was dismissed for non-prosecution on August 30, 2025.

On November 24, 2025, a Single Judge allowed the restoration of the petition subject to a cost of Rs. 1,000 to be deposited within ten days.

Due to the appellant's failure to deposit the costs, the Single Judge ordered on February 27, 2026, that the petition remain dismissed.

The appellant moved a subsequent motion for restoration, citing that her counsel was incapacitated due to a serious leg injury and eye hemorrhage, supported by an affidavit.

The Single Judge dismissed this application on March 25, 2026, citing a lack of conviction regarding the reasons provided.

The appellant then preferred this intra-court appeal.

1. Whether the Single Judge erred in adopting a hyper-technical approach by refusing to condone the delay in depositing costs despite the medical incapacitation of the counsel.

The Court applied the principle of "substantial justice," which prioritizes the resolution of a lis (legal dispute) on its merits rather than on technical defaults.

It relied on the evidentiary value of an affidavit sworn by an Advocate regarding personal medical conditions.

Furthermore, the court exercised its discretionary power under intra-court appeal jurisdiction to mitigate "hyper-technical" or "overly harsh" views that obstruct the salutary purpose of justice.

The Division Bench examined the record and noted that while the counsel’s injury occurred shortly after the initial deadline, the explanation was substantiated by an affidavit and subsequent medical records.

The Court reasoned that the Single Judge's summary discounting of an Advocate's sworn affidavit regarding his health was improper.

It observed that the "salutary purpose" of the judiciary is to resolve disputes on merits, and any delay in compliance could have been adequately compensated by imposing further costs rather than maintaining the dismissal of the entire writ petition.

The Court concluded that the Single Judge took an unnecessarily "hyper-technical view" that failed to account for the incapacitation of the legal representative.

The Court directed the appellant to deposit the original cost of Rs. 1,000 plus an additional cost of Rs. 1,000 (total Rs. 2,000) within one month. Upon deposit, the Registry is directed to list the writ petition; failure to deposit will result in the petition remaining dismissed.

The appeal was disposed of accordingly.