The Supreme Court has said courts should not go strictly by the rule book to deny justice to the deserving litigant as it would lead to miscarriage of justice.

"All the rules of procedure are the handmaids of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice," a bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and Mukundakam Sharma observed.

The apex court said in an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation.

"Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions of CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice," the bench observed.

The apex court passed the ruling while upholding the appeal filed by Sambhaji, who had challenged a judgment of the Bombay High Court refusing to entertain an application moved by him after the mandatory 90 days prescribed under the civil procedure code in a civil dispute with his relatives.
 
"The mortality of justice at the hands of law troubles a Judge's conscience and points an angry interrogation at the law reformer," the court said.

"The processual law so dominates in certain systems as to overpowers substantive rights and substantial justice. The humanist rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of vesting a residuary power in Judges to act," the bench observed.

According to the apex court, a procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory, as it is always subservient to and is in aid of justice. Any interpretation, which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice, is not to be followed.

"Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. A procedural prescription is the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant not a resistant in the administration of justice," the bench said.

Particularly in cases where litigants are relatives, a more liberal approach is necessary, the apex court said.

"In the case of this nature where close relatives are litigants, a liberal approach is called for. In the circumstances we set aside the impugned order of the High Court," the bench said while upholding the appeal.