Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Dr.Sunil Aggarwal v. Hari Ram & Ors - CR-1147-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 1005 (21 February 2006)


Civil Revision No.1147 of 2006

Date of Decision: 28.02.2006

Parties Name

Dr.Sunil Aggarwal



Hari Ram and others


Present: Shri Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner JUDGMENT

Vide order, under challenge, evidence of the petitioner was closed by order. Proceedings before the Rent Controller are now fixed for 6.3.2006 and an undertaking has been given on behalf of the petitioner that he shall complete his evidence on the date fixed. By referring to interim orders, counsel states that on two earlier dates, the petitioner was present in Court, however, the matter was adjourned on a request made by counsel for the opposite party. He further says that on the date fixed, petitioner failed to appear because of gap of communication between him and his counsel. It has further been stated that the petitioner is land owner, his application is for ejectment of the respondent-tenant and if he is not allowed to complete his evidence, he shall suffer an irreparable loss. A prayer has been made to Civil Revision No.1147 of 2006 - 2 -

grant only one opportunity to petitioner, may be subject to payment of costs, to conclude his evidence.

This Court feels that rules and procedure are handmaid of justice to enhance the same and not to subvert it.

Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by L.Rs. and others v. Parmod Gupta (Smt.) dead) by L.Rs.

And others (2003) 3 S.C.C. 272, in para 26 of the judgment had opined as under:-

"Laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose even an adjudication merits of substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and other laws. Procedure has always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not meant to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice."

View extracted above, was reiterated by their Lordships of Supreme Court in N.Balajit v. Virendra Singh and others, (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 312, wherein after noting ratio of the judgment, referred to above, in para 10 of the judgment, it was observed that the procedure would not be used to discourage the substantial and effective justice but would be so construed as to advance the cause of justice.

In view of ratio of judgments, referred to above and facts of this case, revision petition is allowed, order under challenge, is set aside and the trial Court is directed to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to complete his evidence on the date fixed i.e. 6.3.2006. Order passed is subject to payment of Rs.4000/-, as costs, to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent- tenant. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to avail the Civil Revision No.1147 of 2006 - 3 -

opportunity granted by this Court, the revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

At this stage, no notice is being issued to the opposite party, because if the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, it may involve huge expenditure and unnecessary harassment and delay of the proceedings. This view finds support from the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No.9563 of 2002, (Batala Machine Tools Workshop Co-op vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur), rendered on June 27, 2002, in which it was held as under:- "We are conscious of the fact that the instant order is detrimental to the interest of the respondent-workman. We are also conscious of the fact that no notice has been given to the respondent-workman before the instant order has been passed.

The reason for not issuing notice to the respondent-workman is to ensure that he does not have to incur unnecessary expenses in engaging counsel to appear on his behalf in this Court. The instant order by which the present petition is being disposed of fully protects the interest of the respondent-workman inasmuch as the amount determined by the Labour Court, Gurdaspur by its order dated 22.5.2002 has been required to be deposited by the petitioner-Management before the Labour Court/Labour- cum-Conciliation Officer, Gurdaspur."

Liberty is granted to the respondents to get this revision petition revived if they feel dissatisfied with this order.

Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.

February 28, 2006 ( Jasbir Singh )

gk Judge


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.