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


Ghudhu Ram v. Gurjant Singh & Ors - CR-6756-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 1453 (6 March 2006)


Case No.: C.R. No.6756 of 2005

Date of Decision: 16.3.2006

Ghudhu Ram .....Appellant


Gurjant Singh and others .....Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh.

Present: Mr. Tejinder Joshi,Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. R.C.Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.2 ****

Vide order under challenge, evidence of the petitioner/claimant was closed. Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner needs only one opportunity to complete the evidence and if he is not allowed to do so his claim application is likely to be dismissed. It has further been stated that due to some communication gap with the counsel, he failed to produce the witness in Court. It has further been stated that the petitioner needs only one opportunity to conclude his evidence.

This Court feels that present is a case where one more opportunity can be granted to the petitioner. 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 vs. 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."

In view of the judgment referred to above and facts of this case, this revision petition is allowed and order under challenge is set aside.

The Tribunal below is directed to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to conclude his evidence on the date already fixed i.e. 28.3.2006.

Petitioner may, if so desire, get assistance of the trial Court to serve any witness. No further adjournment shall be given for the said purpose. Order passed is subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent-insurance Company on the next date of hearing before the trial Court.



March 16, 2006



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.