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


Mahi Pal v. Alwar - CR-1020-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 1511 (7 March 2006)




C.R. No.1020 of 2006

Date of Decision:3.3.2006

Mahi Pal



Present:- Shri G.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri C.B.Goel, Advocate for the respondent.


Vide order under challenge, evidence of the petitioner was closed by order. Counsel states that suit against the petitioner is for specific performance, of an agreement to sell and if he is not allowed to conclude his evidence, he is likely to suffer an irreparable loss. It has further been stated that on the date fixed, the petitioner could not produce his evidence on account of some gap of communication with his counsel. It has further been stated that the trial is now fixed for 10.3.2006 and the petitioner shall conclude his evidence at his own risk and responsibility. A prayer has been made that may be, subject to payment of costs, one opportunity be granted to the petitioner for the said purpose. Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by Shri C.B.Goel, Advocate appearing for the respondent.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court feels that Rules and procedure are handmaid of justice to enhance the same and C.R. No.1020 of 2006 [2]

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 the judgments referred to above and facts of the present case, this revision petition is allowed. Order under challenge is set aside the trial Court is directed to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner, to conclude his evidence, on 10.3.2006, failing which this revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. Order passed is subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent on 10.3.2006 before the trial Court.

C.R. No.1020 of 2006 [3]

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

March 3, 2006 ( JASBIR SINGH )

renu 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.