Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJ SINGH & ORS versus ANAND PAL & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Raj Singh & Ors v. Anand Pal & Ors - CR-3621-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 1544 (8 March 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No.: C.R. No.3621 of 2005

Date of Decision: 16.3.2006

Raj Singh and others .....petitioners

Vs.

Anand Pal and others .....Respondents

Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh.

Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal,Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1to 3.

****

Vide order under challenge, application of the petitioners to set aside ex-parte order dated 28.8.2001 was dismissed.

The above said order was passed, when despite proclamation in the village, petitioners failed to put in appearance before the trial Court. It is apparent from the records that the service of the petitioner was affected only by way of proclamation and not through ordinary process.

During arguments it was brought to the notice of this Court that proceedings are only at the initial stage. Even issues have not been framed and matter is continuing only with regard to interim stay application. If that is so, it was desirable for the Court below to recall the ex-parte order and allow the petitioners to file their written statement. 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 ratio of judgment and a fact that the trial is still at the initial stage, this revision petition is allowed. Order under challenge is set aside and consequently ex-parte order dated 28.8.2001 is also set aside. Trial Court is directed to grant one more opportunity to the petitioners, after the date, when the suit is pending before it now, to file their written statement. Order passed is subject to payment of costs of Rs.4,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to respondent Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs on the next date of hearing before the trial Court.

In view of the above, trial Court is further directed to expedite disposal of the pending suit/trial.

(JASBIR SINGH)

JUDGE

March 16, 2006

archana


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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