Curable procedural defects in vakalatnama or affidavit cannot ground dismissal of appeal without opportunity to rectify.

The dispute concerns agricultural land originally owned by Smt. Bhagwati Devi. Following her death, the Tehsildar mutated the land in favor of her natural legal heirs on 03.10.2017

Respondents 1 and 2 challenged this before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) based on a Will dated 08.11.1993, and the SDO subsequently ordered mutation in their favor on 10.06.2020

The petitioners appealed this to the Additional Commissioner. During the pendency of the appeal, the original petitioner died, and an application for substitution of LRs was filed

On 16.01.2023, the Additional Commissioner dismissed the entire appeal on technical grounds, noting that the Vakalatnama lacked the appellants' signatures and the supporting affidavit was not verified

The petitioners challenged this dismissal via Article 226 of the Constitution

1. Whether a statutory appeal can be dismissed solely on the grounds of curable procedural defects, such as an unsigned Vakalatnama or unverified affidavit, without providing an opportunity to rectify them.

2. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal while it was specifically listed for the consideration of a substitution application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the CPC.

The Court emphasized that procedural law is a handmaid of justice and should facilitate, not obstruct, the administration of substantive rights

It relied on the principle that technical defects in a Vakalatnama or affidavit are curable and do not go to the root of a court's jurisdiction unless specifically mandated by statute

The court applied the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, which excluded the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for the purpose of computing limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic

The High Court reasoned that since the appeal had been registered and pending for three years without prior objection from the office or the authority, it was deemed a competent proceeding

The Court found the Additional Commissioner’s approach "hyper-technical," noting that the authority failed to provide the petitioners an opportunity to rectify the signatures—a defect that is Curable in nature

The Court observed that dismissing a case for procedural lapses when it was actually listed for a substitution application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC violated the principles of natural justice, as the petitioners were never put on notice regarding the potential dismissal of the main appeal

The High Court noted that the Additional Commissioner failed to account for the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods, which rendered the appeal timely regardless of any Section 5 application

The appeal was restored to its original number, with directions to the Additional Commissioner to allow the petitioners reasonable time to remove procedural defects (Vakalatnama/affidavit), adjudicate the substitution application, and subsequently decide the appeal on its merits