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


Judge Pal alias Jagga Pal v. Dalbir Singh & Ors - CR-1220-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 1043 (21 February 2006)


CIVIL REVISION NO. 1220 of 2006

DATE OF DECISION: March 2, 2006

Parties Name

Judge Pal alias Jagga Pal



Dalbir Singh and others


PRESENT: Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Adv., for Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner.


Vide order dated February 14, 2006, evidence of the petitioner was closed by order. Counsel states that on earlier two occasions, petitioner remained present in Court and has also submitted his affidavit. Only his cross-examination remains to be conducted. On the date fixed, he could not appear because of the sad demise of his mother-in-law. Counsel contends that the suit of the petitioner is for specific performance of an agreement to sell and if he is not allowed to complete his evidence, his suit is bound to be dismissed and in that event, he shall suffer an irreparable loss. He further states that now the trial is fixed for March 6, 2006, and the petitioner shall conclude his evidence on that date. Only one opportunity be granted to him, may be subject to payment of costs.

This Court is of the view that Rules and procedure are handmaid of justice. These are meant to enhance its cause and not to scuttle the same. Their Lordships of the 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 the Supreme Court in N. Balajit v. Virender 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 aforesaid judgments and the facts, as referred to above, this revision petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside. Trial Court is directed to give one more opportunity to the petitioner on March 6, 2006, to complete his remaining evidence, at his own risk and responsibility. This order is subject to payment of Rs.

3,000/- as costs , which shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondents No. 1 and 2 on the date fixed before the trial Court. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to avail the opportunity, as indicated above, this 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 proceedings. This view finds support from a Division Bench judgment 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 inasmuchas 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."

Libery is granted to the respondents to get this revision petition revived, if they feel dissatisfied.

Copy of order be given Dasti under signatures of the Reader.

March 02, 2006. ( Jasbir Singh )

DKC 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.