Substance over form in delay condonation: wrong procedural provision citation cannot defeat merits-based consideration.

An application for condonation of delay could not be rejected solely because it was filed under Section 151 CPC instead of the Limitation Act, where the relief sought was clear and no prejudice was shown. The court reiterated that substance prevails over form, and a wrong procedural label does not defeat a substantive plea. The trial court was required to examine the condonation request on merits and then decide the connected application for striking off the defence. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration by a reasoned order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order dismissing the application for condonation of delay on the ground that it was filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure instead of the Limitation Act could be sustained, and whether the matter required fresh consideration on merits.

Analysis: The application for condonation of delay was rejected without examining the request on merits and solely on a technical objection as to the provision invoked. The governing approach is that the substance of an application prevails over the form in which it is presented, and an incorrect citation of provision does not by itself defeat a substantive plea where the relief sought is clear and no prejudice is caused. The trial court was required to consider the condonation request on its merits and then decide the consequential application for striking off the defence.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and was set aside, with a direction to hear the condonation application afresh and pass a reasoned order on merits.

Final Conclusion: The matter was restored to the trial court for reconsideration of the delay condonation plea and subsequent proceedings in accordance with the outcome of that decision.

Ratio Decidendi: An application cannot be rejected merely for citing the wrong procedural provision if its substance is clear; such matters must be decided on merits by a speaking order.

---