Case Name : High Court of Judicature at Madras Rep. by its Registrar General vs MC Subramaniam & Ors. Case Reference: LL (2021) SC 97 Case Number: SLP (Civil) Nos. 3063-3064/2021 Court: Supreme Court Bench: 02 Coram: Mohan M Shantanagoudar (Author), Vineet Saran Date: 17.02.2021
CPC - Section 89 must be understood in the backdrop of longstanding proliferation of litigation in civil courts which has placed undue burden on the judicial system, forcing speedy justice to become a casualty. It is incumbent on civil courts to strive towards diverting civil disputes towards alternative dispute resolution processes and encourage settlement out of court. The object and purpose of CPC - Section 89 is to facilitate private settlements, and enable lightening of overcrowded docket of judiciary.
Participants in private negotiations and settlements between the parties will be entitled to the same benefits as those referred to explore alternate dispute settlement methods under CPC - Section 89.
Refer also: Directorate of Enforcement vs Deepak Mahajan, (1994) 3 SCC 440 : The function of the court is to expound the law and not legislate; however, the court’s duty is also to mould or creatively interpret the legislation by liberally interpreting the statute. When the language of a statute leads to a manifest contradiction to the apparent purpose of the enactment or some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice, the court may construct it such that the meaning of the words and even the structure of the sentence are modified. However, when the main object and intention of a statute are clear, it must not be reduced to a nullity by the draftsman’s unskillfulness or ignorance of the law except in a case of necessity or absolute intractability of the language used. This could include expanding the scope of the relevant provisions to cover situations which are not strictly encapsulated in the language used. Shailesh Dhairyawan vs Mohan Balkrishna Lull (2016) 3 SCC 619 : The literal rule (golden rule) was used; the doctrine of purposive interpretation is now predominant especially when a literal interpretation may not serve the purpose or may lead to absurdity, if it brings about an end which is at variance with the purpose of the statute. Anurag Mittal vs Shaily Mishra Mittal, (2018) 9 SCC 691
See also:
Act, Section
PDF: High Court of Judicature at Madras vs MC Subramniam, SLP C No 3063-2021 (SC).pdf