justification in the contention of the petitioner, being the mother of the deceased employee that she is also entitled to her 1/3rd share in the amount paid to respondent Nos.1 and 2. If, the present petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is dismissed on the ground of laches and on account of the embargo contained in the proviso under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, she will be left with no legal remedy to recover her 1/3rd share to which she is legally entitled, according to the case pleaded by her. There would be a legal bar on her to file another Suit against respondent Nos.1 and 2, as several technical and legal hurdles may come in her way to pursue the litigation. So, when the facts of the case show that she is prima facie entitled for recovery of her 1/3rd share from respondent Nos.1 and 2, this Court is of the considered view, that the petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, though belated cannot be rejected on technical grounds. Justice cannot be lost in technicalities. If the petition is dismissed and if she is not allowed to claim the amount, gross injustice would be caused to her and she would be deprived of her legitimate share to which she is legally entitled. When technicalities and gross injustice that may be caused on account of the technical hurdles are pitted against each other, the Court should always lean in favour of rendering substantial justice to the parties to see that substantial rights are not defeated on technical grounds. That is the only fact which weighed in her favour before this Court to consider her petition despite laches on her part.
